Regarding carry capacity.
- Thread starter The Terminator
- Start date
Because not all calibers are equal when it comes to quickly stopping aggressive humans.
With equal shot placement, I'm willing to bet that two rounds from a .38 special (or larger caliber) revolver will be much more effective than four, maybe five, rounds from a .22 revolver.
But I agree that there's really no need to carry just a 2-shot derringer when 5-shot revolvers are so light-weight and compact these days.
You're probably right, but a .38 special revolver is a different matter altogether. I was stating the opinion that a weaker caliber, but in quite a large capacity (such as a .22LR 9-shooter), is preferable to a larger caliber in an extremely low capacity (such as the 2-shot derringer). I guess I was thinking of some of the other drawbacks of the derringer as well, when I considered it a lesser choice. A .38 special revolver, on the other would have both an ok ammo capacity AND a larger caliber.
But yeah, I think we do somewhat agree on the basic premise. A S&W 637 airweight 38 special revolver actually weighs less than many if not most derringers of the same caliber, plus it has a higher ammo capacity, and is easier to be accurate with. So why would one choose to carry the derringer?
But yeah, I think we do somewhat agree on the basic premise. A S&W 637 airweight 38 special revolver actually weighs less than many if not most derringers of the same caliber, plus it has a higher ammo capacity, and is easier to be accurate with. So why would one choose to carry the derringer?
A_McDougal
New member
In forum reports about people trying to shoot animals for one reason or another (besides hunting), with shotgun or pistol, they note surprise at how many times they missed.
If you miss with 4 shots of a 3+1 shotgun, time to reload. If you miss with 4 from a 7+1 shotgun, you've got 4 left.
Likewise, if you miss with the first 4 shots of a 5 shot revolver, you'd better get serious with that last shot. If you miss with the first 4 shots from you Glock 17, you still should stop missing but the urgency isn't quite the same.
If you miss with 4 shots of a 3+1 shotgun, time to reload. If you miss with 4 from a 7+1 shotgun, you've got 4 left.
Likewise, if you miss with the first 4 shots of a 5 shot revolver, you'd better get serious with that last shot. If you miss with the first 4 shots from you Glock 17, you still should stop missing but the urgency isn't quite the same.
Yeah, I think that we can all agree that "more capacity" affords one the ability to miss more often and still have ammo in the gun (which might be a blessing or a curse depending upon where those missed rounds are landing), but again, you're making a compromise:
You're trading a lighter-weight and smaller and more concealable gun for a heavier and larger and less concealable gun.
Sure the Glock holds more than the snubbie, but my S&W 637 only weighs 17 oz loaded.
The Glock G17 weighs about 32 oz loaded (31.91 per Glock's website).
For me, 32 oz is a lot of weight to lug around all day, every day.
But I know from experience that the 17 oz snub-nose is something that I have no problem carrying all day long.
And since it's not such a burden to carry, I know that I will have it with me if and when the time comes that I might need it.
Heck, I could carry 2 loaded revolvers and only be a couple of ounces heavier than the loaded Glock 17.
Easy
Last edited:
bababooey32
New member
You could say we're preparing for all the scenarios that those that only carry a handful of rounds are not prepared for:
1) Multiple BGs
2) BG doesn't go down after you're empty
3) malfunction
4) protracted firefight
to name a few
I think it is important to to remember that SD shootings happen at close distances. We know that a BG can close with a victim in less than 1.5 seconds from 21 feet and that's long distance for a SD shooting. I find it hard to believe that most folks can reload fast enough to make a difference in the first three examples quoted above. Before the reload can be accomplished the BG will have either run away or started a physical attack.
I'm sure there are tactics designed to give someone more time to make the reload, but how many folks who carry two or three spare mags actually practice them or practice reloading while one or more bad guys are closing in on them? Or do they simply strap on the spare ammo and feel comforted?
I think the above scenarios are more of an argument for carrying a second, readily accessible gun than for dozens of rounds of ammo.
As far as a protracted firefight, I think the odds of the average citizen being involved in a protracted firefight are so infinitesimal that carrying spare ammo in preparation for such a thing is akin to buying insurance against being hit by a meteorite on the 4th of July.
But its all good. I'm not saying that people shouldn't carry what they want to carry. If you want to carry 4 or 5 dozen rounds of ammo, that's up to you. I personally don't see the logic and feel as well or better defended by my six shot snubby and my 7 shot BUG, both carried on my belt. I could even carry a second BUG and still be carrying less weight than someone with a Glock 19 and two spare mags. And if I lose the use of one hand in the initial confrontation, if I need extra firepower I can still draw the BUG whereas reloading one handed might be difficult.
Last edited:
The ODDS of you ever using your CCW are so remote you could go around unarmed. To date, I have carried 24/7 for the past 22 years and never needed a firearm.
If you cannot even predict when you will need your firearm, how can you predict the exact number of rounds you will need?
It is up to the individual to determine what is appropriate for themselves, not to criticize the choices others have made.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Stating that there are odds to consider is hardly criticism. There are odds associated with EVERYTHING we do, and we most certainly do pay close attention to those odds in our everyday life, even if it is mostly unconscious.
Driving a car is statistically the most dangerous thing most of us will EVER do. Yet we do it anyway because, even though it's dangerous, the odds of a problem on any given day are small. Small enough that we chance it. Some of us carry a gun because, even though the odds are small, we might need it and so we figure it worth the effort. However, there is an event of such incredible unlikelihood that we no longer feel the need to prepare for it. I have no particular preparations for a gang war breaking out in my town, for example, since there is no significant gang activity within 50 miles of me.
Many of us believe that the likelihood of needing reloads in a SD situation is so astronomically small as to be insignificant. That is not criticism of those who carry spare ammo, even if I find it unnecessary. I, and many others, simply choose not to prepare for an event that is unlikely to EVER happen, say nothing of happen to me personally.
The Terminator
New member
Donn_N,
I agree with you whole heartedly.
I agree with you whole heartedly.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
That's a misuse of the term 'insignificant' - standards for statistical significance imply that you make an error at a rate that is usually with a p = .05, .01 or even .001.
Thus, depending on your error - you choose the chance of not having enough ammo in a small percentage of the time.
With very large numbers of event - that small error rate can generate a small but noticeable set of events. The Omaha mall (IIRC) is a case in point.
I know that twice in my life, I faced a car with 5 or 6 BGs. Avoidance worked but a J frame would be a little light in that case.
Given that I carry a J and a reload sometimes because it is convenient but with a known risk.
This is really a silly argument if one says this or that is the way to go.
Basically:
1. Most carry for the single mugger deterrent event.
2. Very, very small risk you get into an intensive event - Mumbai, church, mall or school rampage. If you choose not to have a best chance in this one, that's your decision but it is not foolish to consider these Black Swan event.
Thus, depending on your error - you choose the chance of not having enough ammo in a small percentage of the time.
With very large numbers of event - that small error rate can generate a small but noticeable set of events. The Omaha mall (IIRC) is a case in point.
I know that twice in my life, I faced a car with 5 or 6 BGs. Avoidance worked but a J frame would be a little light in that case.
Given that I carry a J and a reload sometimes because it is convenient but with a known risk.
This is really a silly argument if one says this or that is the way to go.
Basically:
1. Most carry for the single mugger deterrent event.
2. Very, very small risk you get into an intensive event - Mumbai, church, mall or school rampage. If you choose not to have a best chance in this one, that's your decision but it is not foolish to consider these Black Swan event.
Deaf Smith
New member
I can site several cases where civilians winchestered their defensive handguns and ended up with empty ones. An easy example is Lance Thomas. He had that happen TWICE (his third gunfight he had several large cal. autos hidden around his shop.)
Now alot of defensive use of guns involves just the display of the weapon. A minority involve actual shots fired. But their are definatly some who end up shooting the contents of their weapon and having to reload or run.
And for those that say they never felt undergunned, well have you actually used it to defend yourself where actual gunfire was needed? Do that first before you feel so confident with just a J frame .38.
Now alot of defensive use of guns involves just the display of the weapon. A minority involve actual shots fired. But their are definatly some who end up shooting the contents of their weapon and having to reload or run.
And for those that say they never felt undergunned, well have you actually used it to defend yourself where actual gunfire was needed? Do that first before you feel so confident with just a J frame .38.
Everyone plays the odds, even those who choose high-cap handguns....
If you choose to carry a Glock 17 without a reload, you're banking on the odds than you will not need 19 rounds.
And if you choose to carry a Glock 17 with an extra magazine, then you're banking on the odds that you will not need 36 rounds.
I'm banking on the odds that I will not need more than 5 rounds.
We're all playing the odds.
But I'm playing the odds while carrying a 17 ounce handgun.
Some are playing the odds while carrying about 40 ounces of handgun and extras on them....which is way too much weight to lug around for me.
If you choose to carry a Glock 17 without a reload, you're banking on the odds than you will not need 19 rounds.
And if you choose to carry a Glock 17 with an extra magazine, then you're banking on the odds that you will not need 36 rounds.
I'm banking on the odds that I will not need more than 5 rounds.
We're all playing the odds.
But I'm playing the odds while carrying a 17 ounce handgun.
Some are playing the odds while carrying about 40 ounces of handgun and extras on them....which is way too much weight to lug around for me.
ImprobableJoe
Moderator
Amen brother. The odds of even needing a handgun for SD are small. The odds of needing a few extra rounds and not being able to reload are even smaller. The odds that a few extra-capacity mags are going to make the difference is even smaller than that.
Knowing that, I have actually had people claim in all seriousness that they needed the extra rounds in case of being attacked by a medium-sized street gang in their own home... which is pretty much a scenario that only exists in those old Charles Bronson movies!
BTW, if you're even in Florida I'll hook you up with a couple of pizzas to kill...
ImprobableJoe
Moderator
I wonder about that... if the stakes are so high, wouldn't it be better to pick a safer "game"?
At some point, it should become less about being prepared for a situation, and more about avoiding that situation. Maybe you can't avoid a mugging, or a home invasion... but I would think you could almost certainly avoid a prolonged gunfight with multiple attackers?
I remember long ago, back in the 1980s, reading one of the more popular gun-enthusiast magazines... it might have been Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement. Anyhoo, the guy writing the article made a comment along the lines of "if you need more than six shots, you need to call for backup." Like other people here, I wouldn't fault anyone for carrying more if convenient, but I just have a hard time understanding why.
One should carry what one feels necessary.
Improbable, Joe? Perhaps one doesn't wish to play, but the 'game' may find him, nevertheless. Thus, the 'stakes' can be high, even where one makes all the decisions necessary to minimize the 'odds' of risk.
Folks wouldn't be here, if they thought a 'call for back-up' were, in all cases, so readily available, and .... timely. (Fortunately, they needn't make you understand before proceeding to decide what's best for them.)
Improbable, Joe? Perhaps one doesn't wish to play, but the 'game' may find him, nevertheless. Thus, the 'stakes' can be high, even where one makes all the decisions necessary to minimize the 'odds' of risk.
Folks wouldn't be here, if they thought a 'call for back-up' were, in all cases, so readily available, and .... timely. (Fortunately, they needn't make you understand before proceeding to decide what's best for them.)
Last edited: