Why Aren't 8 Shots Enough?

Status
Not open for further replies.
10 is enough

I feel well armed with a SKS 10rd mag and a 45 7rd mag. high cap mags have been around since WW1 and the dough boys of WW1 carred 5 shot bolt rifles and did not cry for 20rd BARs for everyone .
 
Sense a situation wasn't really given on this subject, I'll just use home protection as the situation. I personally have a 17 round 9mm by my night stand and a 5 shot pump 12 gauge close by as well. Having more than 8 rounds is a great idea because I'd rather not need it and have it than need it and not have it. That being said. I personally feel safe with the above mentioned. I believe I can do my part against the possible home evasion.
 
this is just me but I prefer the knowledge that I don't have to reload as often should I need rapid followup shots on multiple targets. this is for scenarios that have almost no chance at all at of ever happening where you find yourself in the middle of a warzone but it is still nice to have for say sd against larger non human assailants. also, the 12 pound garand is a little less convenient than a 7 pound AR15 or 9 pound M14 clone.
 
Last edited:
I'm not understanding why this is a one-or-the-other issue. Lots of us own multiple rifles. Hell, some of us own both rifles AND shotguns. No reason you can't factor multiple longarms into your HD/SD plans, particularly if you are using a layered defense plan. The only thing that's essential, as far as I'm concerned, is that any firearm that is a part of your plan be one that you are extremely well-trained with and can function, fire, reload (and clear, if necessary) in the dark. Aside from that, this is like chefs arguing over whether a chef's knife or a santoku is better in the kitchen.
 
Kraig, don't forget those M1's and M14's that were rebarreled with thicker ones filling out with as much barrel steel as possible as well as lead-shot filled epoxy poured into the butt stock holes under the butt plate to make 12-pound service rifles. And some stocks were thicker than standard service ones. There was never a rule on weight limit. Those heavy ones held much more steady in all three shooting postions as well as reducing felt recoil.

Some M14 and M1A magazines even had lead-shot filled epoxy in them to add even more weight. I've shouldered and fired a few built this way. They hold very still in standing/offhand just like a 14-pound 300 metre free rifle complete with palm rest. Especially those magazines filled almost to the top for single round loading.
 
What I got from the OP was that he was trying to understand why anyone would consider the 8shots (or 10) to be sub par from a rifle, but just fine in a shotgun.

And while there is no denying that the M1 Garand is a fine battle implement, and a good rifle, there are other rifles today with equal performance down range that have higher magazine capacities.

Several have made the point about the M1 (and SKS) being heavy. And, they are. BUT there is a reason for this. They are designed to fight with. Not just shoot. Not just survive and function after all the bangs and knocks, but to be able to both be useful and functional in hand to hand combat as well.

That's something no one seems to remember, and virtually never takes into account when looking at rifles for personal (civilian) defense. Odds are none of us will ever need a rifle capable of blocking an enemy bayonet thrust and deleivering an effective counterstroke, and then still be capable of fuction and reasonable accuracy.

Modern armies took lessons from WWII, and nations moved away from durable, ruggedly constructed arms in favor of lighter, more easily mass produced weapons. This works for a military, supported by national armories and factories, with replacement systems built in for combat losses.

And those lighter designed and built weapons work just fine for shooting machines, and (legal versions) serve civilian needs as well, as its more than rare for regular citizens to use a rifle in hand to hand combat. Generally, at that close range, we just shoot 'em.

Why do you think all those millions of Krags, Springfields, Mausers, Arisakas, Enfields, etc got sporterized to one degree of another? Not just to make them look better, (although when well done, it was a side effect)but to make them lighter. Deer and varmint hunters weren't going to be fighting with the rifles, all we were going to be doing was shooting them. So we didn't need the extra weight to lug about.
 
Because most people seem to think that they are going to be attacked by a whole mechanized infantry division when they plan out their home defense plan.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, straw man but funny nonetheless

If you can't protect yourself with 8 shots, you are either going to be out gunned and lose anyway, or you'll have a hard job explaining the situation in court.
Click to expand...
A) I'd rather be alive in court then dead with an empty magazine
B) Many people own businesses with a large amount of cash flow. While a 30 round magazine might not be "theoretically" needed, it sure as hell is when you own a Jewelry store.

Most importantly, whose decision is that to make, mine or the gov't?
Just like the need to protect your property from a masked gun man 300yards away. Since when do armed burglars start their heist by laying down suppressive fire from 300yards away.
Click to expand...
This made me laugh out loud. Good point, but some people (like myself) want my SD/HD platform to have other uses than sitting in my closet. Not everyone has the capital for multiple firearms to invest in for specific purposes.


EDIT: And as is tradition, 44 Amp has my favorite post in the thread
 
"Why aren't eight shots enough?"


Because I can't guarantee that I have good enough markmanship skills to take out 4 bad guy's --- that have a violent intent on putting me down --- with just eight shots from a rifle. Shotgun? Maybe... but it would probably need to be a close encounter scenario. Besides...I'm a spray and pray type of guy, especially when it's my job to provide suppressive fire to an enemy --- inorder to keep there heads down --- so my good guys can escape and relocate from a possible hellish situation. Try that with just 8 shots...and I'll just about guarantee failure.
 
Last edited:
Addressing the OP: Some people might think that or have said that to you because they believe it, and soem might have said it to you because they are trying to justify the $1500 they just put on their credit card. That's porbably why people say it.

As to the people who really believe it: they are probably thinking the situation through better and are less risk tolerant than those more comfortable with a lower capacity weapon. They understand that they might need more than 8 (or ten or six) rounds and assuming they can afford a weapon platform which provides this, why not have it?

Some might just be rambo's who want to go heroically bursting through doorways and stop the BG from taking their beloved blu-ray player.

As for myself: I think 6 rounds are probably fine in my shotgun because my house has a very convenient shape; my wife and I's bedroom and my daughters bedroom are reached by means of a hallway with only one way into or out of the rest of the house. I'm a light sleeper, i literally wake up multiple times every night from sounds like my neighbors door opening or my daughter sneezing, it sucks actually (and I am not embellishing), but it's reassuring to know that if someone breaks in I should have more than enough time to arm myself (my wife will retrive my daughter, who is literally ten steps from our bed and close themselves in the closet) and set up next to my nightstand, which has 50+ rounds of buckshot and 10 rounds of slugs as well as a clear view down the aforementioned hallway. I've trained myself to load rounds as I shoot by having my buddy throw boxes of 100 clays, one at a time, every 1-2 seconds (enough time to work the action) while I continue to load rounds from an open box next to me. I have trained myself to be an absolute machine from a kneeling position with a shotgun and a box of rounds next to me; and the hallway funnel's whoever might want to attack me into a "beaten zone" (if you will allow me this one embellishment...)

So why don't I have an AR? i can't afford one. I'm in college, I work a menial job, I support a wife and child; the $250 for my Mossberg 500 was a big stretch actually. I can't get the platform I want, so I have found a way to make a "lesser" platform work. Use what you can, i used to use a Mosin-Nagant when I had to pursue a bump in the night; 5 rounds loaded, bayonet fixed, no joke. Now I just don't pursue bumps in the night. I have a daughter, it isn't worth it, have my TV, I'll be at my "post" thanks, just leave my family alone.

All that said, the implication that 8 rounds from a Garand isn't enough is ridiculous; it's clip fed: carry more clips! It's not that hard to load a clip in one from what I have heard, I'm sure it's easier than single loading buckshot into a shotgun while in a firefight actually.

Also, to the OP again; it's probably not the same people saying "8 isn't enough" as the people saying "a shotgun is all I need." So you're question isn't really answerable in that sense. Why do people say it? Because it's what they think. The reasons for them thinking this is bound to be so varied as to be hardly worth exploring.
 
I'm thinking it's just the philosophy of "more bang for your BUCK" per round. I would still want the 12 because of what I would beleive would be a higher one shot stop and the fact that there is a margin for error. I mean, on the battlefield, of course I'd rather have a Garand or SKS, but if you're woken up, still half asleep, I just think you want that margin for error. Either that, or 30 round magazines in an AR-15.

It really depends on your situation... How far are the police? How many are attacking (biggest one, or a single shot .22 would do the job...)

What makes you feel safe? What are you most proficient with? Which is best suited for the environment? I think ideally, I'd want something like a Saiga 12 with a drum magazine...
 
I think (:rolleyes:) that it's relative to the task at hand, depends on my fighting position, distance of engagement, and loadings.
The scenarios run through my mind where both would rane supreme, but an ole gent told me once," i'd rather get hit by a thousand ping pong balls, than just one golf ball". it pretty much sums up the difference.
The Captain hit the nail on the head, when he refered to the Infantry matches, those men are wicked wicked men, for being in the physical shape and mind to get those rounds off "on target", and keep moving... Truly impressive.. Thanks Captain for making think about those matches...:)
 
I dare say that if it were not for Internet forums and gun magazines, most of us would get through our entire lifetime satisfied with only a 6 shot revolver, maybe a shotgun, or the rifle of our choosing (8 shot, more, or less), without thinking twice about it, or ever realizing we were "undergunned".
 
I dare say that if it were not for Internet forums and gun magazines, most of us would get through our entire lifetime satisfied with only a 6 shot revolver, maybe a shotgun, or the rifle of our choosing (8 shot, more, or less), without thinking twice about it, or ever realizing we were "undergunned".
Click to expand...

You know I bet that would be true.....unless you were in a defensive situation and you just fired your 6th or 8th shot and the threat or threats weren't down.......at that moment you would probably be very unsatisfied with the amount of rounds you had and say to yourself **** I sure wish I had gotten something with a little more capacity......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top