Actual civilian gunfights

Trebor

October 27, 2011, 09:28 PM

The more reading I do the more I believe the number of rounds fired in a "gunfight" is directly related to the number of rounds in the gun. That is, that shooters (good guys or bad guys) will tend to shoot most, or all, of their gun load before the fight is over.

So, if the participants are using six shot revolvers, the total number of rounds per shooter will be near six, but generally not more.

If a participant is using a higher capacity semi-auto, the number of shots fired will go up, until it reaches the initial mag capacity of the gun. (Not all will fire the whole mag, but many will fire most of the mag and very few will reload)

What I don't see are many cases of "civilian" (non police) shootings were the good guy or the bad guy reloads. It seems to be a "shoot what you brought" affair where once the ammo supply in the gun is gone, the fight is over, one way or the other.

This is just a broad generalization, not a scientific study by any means. And, I'm sure there is selection bias (mine) in there as well. Not to mention the fact that most reports of gun fights and shootings leave out details like number of rounds fired, magazine capacity, whether or not the shooters had extra mags, etc.

DoubleTapDrew

October 27, 2011, 09:58 PM

I think the main reason isn't necessarily ammo capacity but the fact that the most common malfunction in semi-autos (magazine malfunction) which will probably happen at the most inconvenient time.

Jenrick

October 27, 2011, 10:11 PM

If you are forced to shoot, most people are going to pull the trigger way to fast for good hits (hence the abysmally low hit rate for shootings). So let's go with .2 splits between rounds. That means for you to see and react to your assailant dropping, surrendering, etc. you will probably fire at least 2-3 more rounds (it takes on average at least .5 seconds to see, evaluate, and respond to a stimulus). That I would say is one of the reasons people frequently run their guns dry if it gets to that point.

-Jenrick

Deaf Smith

October 27, 2011, 10:49 PM

Actually that is right Jenrick.

And I bet alot of times the ones being shot have already been 'stopped' before the shooter has stopped firing.

When I practice on the range I don't try for super fast splits on the timer. Used to I could go down to .16 or so splits but now days .20 to .25 as long as the hits are good, I mean the size of a soft ball no matter what the range (and the further the range the more the splits go to .25 or .30.)

I see no benefit in tearing off six fast shots if for or five of them miss.

Deaf

trex1310

October 27, 2011, 10:57 PM

wrong

Well, you must be an expert on civilian gunfights. Exactly how many
gunfights have you been involved in? Inquiring minds want to know.

Put a period after your response. It isn't hard

BossHogg

October 27, 2011, 11:02 PM

If I'm going against 10 gangbangers I'm dead. If I'm being robbed for my billfold I hand it over. Life or death for me or my family is the only fight I offer. Not worth the hassle and lawsuits over anything else.

Kiln

October 28, 2011, 01:45 AM

Put a period after your response. It isn't hard
I like how you got onto him but didn't add a period to the end of your last sentence.

JaxNovice

October 28, 2011, 06:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxnovice
it is extremely rare that a protracted gun fight breaks out. I am unsure of the exact amount, but the average number of bullets fired is around 2.5.

wrong

Responses and people like this really prevent meaningful discourse.

Kiln

October 28, 2011, 06:47 AM

The average gunfight has around 2k rounds fired...if you are an African rebel.

There may be a reason that so many shots are fired per encounter though: http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00270/mogadishu1a_270864s.jpg

Guy on the far right practicing proper African rebel marksmanship.

eazyrider

October 28, 2011, 07:05 AM

I have to take my hat off to you! That's a response so unambiguously unhelpful as to actually make me laugh right out loud!

"Wrong" as in the number is really 2.6 shots per incident? Or "wrong" as in the average number is 26 rounds? Or wrong because average number of shots does not appropriately inform the decision of how many rounds to carry? Or something else entirely?

Don't leave us hanging! Make a sentence out of that which explains your opinion and how you came to possess it.
That was one of the best smack downs I have ever read. And so polite as well.

Sam1911

October 28, 2011, 08:01 AM

That was one of the best smack downs I have ever read. And so polite as well.
Well, I didn't mean it as a "smackdown" or at all disrespectfully. If you respond "wrong," I assume there's some reason you think that some portion of the preceding statement was incorrect, and that you have some reason for believing so.

Sooooo, what was it? If you wish to refute a fact or opinion, there simply must be a clear indication of what error you believe was presented, and what facts or opinions of your own inform that conclusion.

...

Also, guys please leave off the side track discussion of grammar and punctuation. Sloppy writing is annoying, but not worth derailing the thread. Thanks.

TexasRifleman

October 28, 2011, 08:44 AM

Regardless of the statistical average number of shots fired, my gut would tell me that most civilian gunfights have as many shots fired as the cylinder or magazine hold.

Lots of articles and books put forward the number 2.7, so there must be some good statistical data behind that number, but that doesn't mean much.

I read a Ken Hackathorn article somewhere once that said basically that criminal shootings (where no fire is returned) average between 1-4 shots. Gunfights involving civilians most always resulted in both parties firing until empty, regardless of capacity.

Probably not a lot of good data to give real proof, but the idea that most untrained civilians would shoot til the gun stopped doesn't take much of a leap of faith.

I have also seen it stated in numerous places that 80% of people shot in gunfights survive.

Double Naught Spy

October 28, 2011, 08:53 AM

trex1310 said,
Well, you must be an expert on civilian gunfights. Exactly how many
gunfights have you been involved in? Inquiring minds want to know.

Well trex, you don't appear to be an expert either when it comes to data analysis. One need not participate in any gunfights to be able to study and understand the numbers of rounds fired.

His answer was lacking, as already noted, but that does not mean that he is wrong or needs to be an experienced gunfighter.

Trebor

October 28, 2011, 10:08 AM

Lots of articles and books put forward the number 2.7, so there must be some good statistical data behind that number, but that doesn't mean much.

My understanding is that the meme that "most gunfights have 3 shots fired" comes from the old NYPC SOP 9 reports.

The NYPD records and tracks data on every officer involved shooting and publishes a report each year. These shootings include fights with criminals, accidental discharges, and suicides.

This info has been circulating in the LEO community for years. If you do some very simple statistical analysis of older SOP 9 reports I think you'll see the origin of the belief that "less then 3 rounds are rifed in most gunfights."

Personally, I think the SOP is widely and wildy misinterperated and that maxim on the law number of shots fired should be regarded as basically an urban myth at this point.

When the NYPD carried six shot revolvers, which was until fairly recently, the average number of rounds fired by NYPD officer in a fight was almost always six or less. When you add in the number of AD's and suicides (where presumbly only one round is fired) and then average the result, the number of "rounds fired per incident" (not fight, but incident, which is what they tracked) would skew even lower.

Now that the NYPD has been carrying Glocks for awhile, my understanding is the average number of rounds fired per actual "gun fight" has gone up. Basically, when they carried a six shot revovler, they fired up to six. Now that they have a 15 (or more) round Glock, they shoot more.

I don't have the documentation to back this up. This is just my understanding based on the reading I've done and what other people with better info than I have said on the subject.

So, the take away is, don't believe the old "most gunfights involve less then 3 rounds" story.

ATLDave

October 28, 2011, 10:17 AM

Trebor, what you say sounds plausible. Any idea, though, about civilian gunfights? Barring unusual circumstances, such as a jewelry store owner specifically targeted for a violent, multi-party robbery, I have the impression that most confrontations involving an armed civilian are ended with a brandished gun, and then the majority of those that require the gun to be discharged are over pretty quickly.

Regardless of the number of shots fired, it seems (based on no evidence but my own reading of news stories over the years) that extended exchanges of gunfire, with parties taking cover, reloading, clearing stoppages, etc., are extremely rare between a civilian and one or more criminals. Which stands to reason, since most criminals are preadators looking for easy prey. Once a gun comes out and starts making noise, they have to be really determined to do anything but leave.

Jonah71

October 28, 2011, 10:21 AM

I've quit carrying extra mags. I see nothing wrong with carrying them if you feel the need. Maybe I'm just getting old the fewest number of shots I have with any of my carry guns (except for the 5 rnd bug) would be 11 rounds. That seems like more than enough even with my poor shooting skills.

TexasRifleman

October 28, 2011, 10:22 AM

Any idea, though, about civilian gunfights?

I doubt there are any real statistics on non LE gunfights to any degree. I suspect it will all be circumstantial.

Trebors point is probably right, and why I say that the 2.7 "average" doesn't really matter. You will have lots of single shot incidents skewing the numbers lower.

The most believable scenario in my opinion is the idea that the average guy with little to no training will shoot until the gun stops running, however many rounds that may be.

By then the perp is most likely down or fleeing. I would agree that there are probably not many fights with reloads.

ATLDave

October 28, 2011, 10:29 AM

Here's one that happened in my town yesterday: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/homeowner-shoots-intruder-buckhead/nFNYM/

Two shots from shotgun (both intended as warnings, but one hit anyway?!?), home invasion/burglary. Sounds like the perpetrator was drunk/stoned/high out of his gourd. Gets hit in the leg, stops his advance up the stairwell, cops come, incident over.

Greg528iT

October 28, 2011, 10:49 AM

Remember the 2.6 or 2.7 is an average. If 2 people are in a fire fight, and one get's pinned down and does not fire a single shot, that means the other participant has fired 6-7 shots, before the end of the conflict. It also does not account for the number of incidents where 1 shot, is fired and the conflict has ended (assuming a good hit and the other participant goes down). That leaves a few exchanges where a LOT more shots are fired.
statistically speaking

TexasRifleman

October 28, 2011, 11:00 AM

I ask simply because some folks here must clank like a bulldozer walking around, what with all the spare ammo, BUG's, etc. How often does this stuff even come into play in the real world?

This was the original question, and no one has touched on it much so I will confess first.

Sometimes I carry a bunch of crap around with me simply because I can. Is that what you wanted to hear? lol. That's probably the real reason for that much gear, just because we can.

I've carried concealed an XDm in .40 with a 16 round mag and 2 spare mags just because I wanted to... I didn't really expect to need 49 rounds at the mall. :)

Sam1911

October 28, 2011, 11:03 AM

one get's pinned down and does not fire a single shot,Well, one of the things we're having trouble pinning down is exactly what kinds of incidents have been counted to make up these statistics.

While that one guy who can't get off a shot is an important one to include, the indication is that only when shots were fired were those incidents included. And then, confoundingly, ANY shots fired were counted, including suicides and negligent discharges, which have nothing to do with defensive shootings at all!

I rather do believe that very little of instructive value can be taken from such statistics.

My gut tells me that many more violent encounters are resolved by the SHOW of a gun than the firing of one.

My gut tells me that most folks will shoot until the gun is empty.

My gut tells me that most folks will miss with the majority of the shots they do manage to fire.

My gut tells me that most folks will never need to or be able to accomplish a reload before the encounter is over.

My brain tells me that I can afford to carry a reload or two and that malfunctions and mag failures are about as likely a reason to need one as needing to fire a 10th-58th shot (depending on which gun I'm carrying).

But I'm really uncertain what the statistics really tell me... :)

Unistat

October 28, 2011, 11:06 AM

I carry a spare mag as a backup mag more so than ammo ; )
Y/D
^This.

...but, several of the self-defense shootings in this area in the last few years have had double digit round counts and were over in seconds.

It doesn't have to be a protracted engagement for lots of lead to fly.

Fotno

October 28, 2011, 11:11 AM

The more I read and talk to folks who have actually survived gunfights, the more I see gunfights as completely unpredictable. How much ammo is fired in a civilian engagement? The answer to that would be dependent on dozens of factors; The determination, number and intent of the aggressor(s), the training (or lack thereof) of the defender(s), the weapons involved...Etc.

I come from a law enforcement family, grandfather, father, uncles, cousins and friends so I've heard the 'war stories' since I was a kid.

My father (career LE) believed that most crooks tended to rely on their guns right up till they were getting shot at themselves, and then they couldn't get out of the situation fast enough. In his experience when a crook looking for an easy score is fired upon, they would either return fire then run, or just plain run if they had any avenue of escape. Far more dangerous according to dad, were attackers who had lost most/all of their sense of self-preservation as a result of mental illness, substance abuse or a desire for revenge/retribution.

I realize it's a cop-out to say it 'depends', but it really does. I think Sam1911's gut feelings are right on the money, and they match my own feelings to a tee.

ATLDave

October 28, 2011, 11:15 AM

Here's a thought: Human reaction times are finite, and non-instantaneous. The moment when a threat stops being a threat and the moment when the threat is percieved to no longer be a threat will virtually never be the same instant, and the perception will usually lag. I would suspect that, in many of the mag-emptying incidents, if the ammo had run out sooner, the result would have been the same. The shooter just cannot register that the asailant is on his way down, or turning to run, as fast as he/she can pull the trigger a couple more times.

I guess where I was going with this thread is that a huge amount of energy and attention seems to be focused (on this board and even in training classes) on dealing with incedibly-unlikely permutations of an already unlikely scenario. I don't think there's any harm in preparing for things like a combat reload, or taking cover from return fire, or dealing with a mid-mag malfunction, but I wonder if highroad CC'er's spend a disproportionate amount of their time and energy (and money) training and equiping themselves for them. Or maybe these are just more interesting to discuss than trigger control, front-sight focus, and other shooting fundamentals that seem far more likely to really influence the outcome of a civilian SD shooting. Or, for that matter, a clear understanding of what the rules of one's jurisdiction are regarding justifiable use of potentially-deadly force, etc.

Sam1911

October 28, 2011, 12:02 PM

Are you seeing such concentration, discussions, training, and practice as a zero-sum kind of operation, wherein spending time practicing one detracts from proficiency with the other?

I'm not sure I agree, or really disagree either, with that opinion. Certainly the first few shots are the most critical, usually, sometimes. But we could chase that theory back another level and say that shooting someone is an extremely unlikely permutation of the unlikely scenario that we find ourselves in a dangerous confrontation. And, by extension, perhaps all this shooting practice with trigger control, front-sight focus, etc. is all taking away from the much more important pursuit of good situational awareness and the social skills useful in avoiding the use of violence.

My perception is that there is little cost to carrying a reload, and if I'm going to carry a gun, I might as well have a back-up mag to go along with it. Having it doesn't weigh me down any. (Like TR said, it balances the gun well.) If I'm going to carry a gun, knowing how to quickly, smoothly reload it and clear a malfunction is just a common-sense skill to acquire. It sure doesn't take range time away from other things -- in fact it improves my range time.

I guess I don't see that one aspect of the picture really obscures or precludes the other. I want to be proficient with arms, AND as good as I can be at avoiding trouble, AND to have a realistic understanding of the legal principles involved in self-defense.

A complete novice might not be able to chase all those goals simultaneously, but one does not need to remain a novice forever.

Delford

October 28, 2011, 12:06 PM

While some of the posters seem to think they'd pull til they're dry, news reports of several shootings (unfortunately) in our area are over with one or two shots. These are not gunfights. I can't recall a gunfight ever reported in our city. Hopefully there never will be.

Once consideration for stopping is how bad your ears ring when shooting with no ear protection. I carry a .45 and while walking in the woods on a farm thought I needed to pull the trigger to see what it would be like. The next 8 shots were with a lip balm tube in one ear and the cap in the other. If my adrenaline was flowing in a dangerous situation I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger but the pain in my ears would attenuate how many times I fired, making sure the threat was no longer there.

TexasRifleman

October 28, 2011, 12:50 PM

If my adrenaline was flowing in a dangerous situation I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger but the pain in my ears would attenuate how many times I fired, making sure the threat was no longer there.

More anecdotal stuff but reports I've read that researched shootings, both LE and civilian, say that folks don't remember even hearing their shots.

Averageman

October 28, 2011, 01:07 PM

ATLDave

October 28, 2011, 01:19 PM

Sam1911, I can't/don't disagree with anything you say. I guess I'm just a bit bemused by the apparent relative effort that goes into things that are extremely unlikely as opposed to merely very unlikely.

Lots of talk on THR about being prepared for worst case scenarios. Well, worst case scenario is that some guy mistakes me for someone else and shoots me in the back of the head from 50 yards away. Because I'm unwilling to go around town with a SAPI plate duct-taped to the back of a kevlar helmet on my head, I just have to accept that I am not prepared for the worst case scenario.

As long as people are rationally and knowingly deciding to prepare for extremely unlikely variants of very unlikely scenarios, that's cool. (I do it, too!) I just think we ought to be clear-eyed about how improbable it is that a civilian (excluding armored car drivers and jewelry store/pawn shop owners) will ever, ever need those skills or equipment. If we're doing it because it's fun, or provides a sense of mastery, then that's great and sensible. If we're doing it because we think we're more likely to die if we don't, then that's kind of hard to justify.

ATLDave

October 28, 2011, 01:22 PM

I've never been in a "civilian" shooting; but I have been in a couple in the Military.
I never wished afterwards that I had come to the fight with LESS ammo or MORE hearing protection.

One of the points that emerges in this thread, though, is that civilian SD shootings have a very different character than LEO shootings, much less military battles. Obviously, there are a lot of lessons from the latter that are applicable to civilian shootings - but not all of them.

David E

October 28, 2011, 01:29 PM

LOL!

I knew my brief post would spark some responses!

I had typed "WRONG!!!" originally, but it didn't show up as all caps. I re-posted it 3-4 times, but the caps (short for 'capital letters') never appeared. It seemed a bit incongruous to have exclamation marks after all lower case (small) letters, so I let it go. Amusing how the lack of a period offends some, especially when people like that inspired my sig line. :rolleyes:

As I've posted countless times before on this forum, the 2.6, 2.7 whatever "shots fired" stat is WRONG because that stat INCLUDES things like AD's, warning shots, suicides, animal put-downs and similar incidents that typically only involve ONE shot fired and then, there is sometimes no one else present. These incidents must be factored out to achieve a meaningful "shots fired during violent confrontations" statistic.

Tallinar

October 28, 2011, 02:03 PM

Personally, I carry a six-shooter with no extra ammunition on my person. In my consideration of what sort of threats I am likely to encounter in my neck of the woods, I have concluded (in theory only) that if I can't end the encounter with these six rounds, I'm not going to be able to end it at all.

If my circumstances and location were such that I considered myself at risk of the Lance Thomas sorts of encounters, I would likely carry a high-cap automatic with an additional magazine. But I don't currently own one, and I don't feel undergunned with this here revolver.

We could theorize all day long about how many rounds we'd need in X, Y, and Z scenarios. I really think one would do well to assess their daily routine; lifestyle; what sorts of locations they find themselves in on a daily basis; and decide what to carry based on those things.

Besides, I think there are more day-to-day practical things we can do to keep ourselves and our families safe - such as simply making good common sense decisions that will aid us in avoiding violent situations altogether. Being armed is important, but as Sam said in another thread:

Your eyes, ears, and "street smarts" (Situational Awareness) are more important to your safety than a gun.

Sam1911

October 28, 2011, 02:08 PM

Your eyes, ears, and "street smarts" (Situational Awareness) are more important to your safety than a gun. Wow. That's good! Mind if I borrow it?

Tallinar

October 28, 2011, 02:11 PM

Wow. That's good! Mind if I borrow it?

Oh, come on now. I gave you credit. :neener:

Sam1911

October 28, 2011, 02:16 PM

Ha, I missed that. Always funny to me to see someone else adopt something I said as worth passing on.

Cosmoline

October 28, 2011, 02:18 PM

Just going from local reports and incidents over the years, the shot totals tend to be low because the shooters don't want to linger. The one shooting I witnessed I didn't even realize had happened until the nightly news. I just heard some commotion, saw a car speed off and rode my bike past some guy holding his gut on the curb. Figured he'd had too much to drink, but he'd been shot! Dude didn't ask me for help, and refused to give a statement to police.

But there are cases where a lot of rounds are fired. The big football shootout a few years ago down at the park saw a huge number of rounds fired, but only one injury. Some of it was, I suspect, shooting around people to express some kind of bravado. So maybe it's better to be shot at by the criminals who shoot a lot of bullets, than by the ones who shoot only a few.

Fotno

October 28, 2011, 02:47 PM

Situational awareness should always be paramount. I know there are people who have no choice but to walk dangerous streets and be around dangerous people, but folks who intentionally or negligently place themselves in harms way for no good reason? Courting disaster IMO.

I have a CCP and I carry daily. I also train as much and as well as my finances and abilities allow. But I also avoid areas and situations that I know to be dangerous like the plague. If the good Lord be willing and the creek don't rise, I hope to pass from this life a very old man having never had the need to fire a shot in anger.

9mmepiphany

October 28, 2011, 04:47 PM

My understanding is that the meme that "most gunfights have 3 shots fired" comes from the old NYPC SOP 9 reports.

The NYPD records and tracks data on every officer involved shooting and publishes a report each year. These shootings include fights with criminals, accidental discharges, and suicides.

This info has been circulating in the LEO community for years. If you do some very simple statistical analysis of older SOP 9 reports I think you'll see the origin of the belief that "less then 3 rounds are rifed in most gunfights."

Personally, I think the SOP is widely and wildy misinterperated and that maxim on the law number of shots fired should be regarded as basically an urban myth at this point.

When the NYPD carried six shot revolvers, which was until fairly recently, the average number of rounds fired by NYPD officer in a fight was almost always six or less. When you add in the number of AD's and suicides (where presumbly only one round is fired) and then average the result, the number of "rounds fired per incident" (not fight, but incident, which is what they tracked) would skew even lower.

Now that the NYPD has been carrying Glocks for awhile, my understanding is the average number of rounds fired per actual "gun fight" has gone up. Basically, when they carried a six shot revovler, they fired up to six. Now that they have a 15 (or more) round Glock, they shoot more.

I don't have the documentation to back this up. This is just my understanding based on the reading I've done and what other people with better info than I have said on the subject.

So, the take away is, don't believe the old "most gunfights involve less then 3 rounds" story.
I'm not quoting this because I disagree with it, but because it brings up a lot of good points that I'd like to expand on.

The 2.7 figure is widely quoted...as is the distance of engagements...but you have to understand which figures are being collected (commonly atributed to NYPD or the FBI). These are the number of rounds which were discharged in shootings resulting in a death...if someone didn't die, they don't count the rounds fired (the crime scene is investigated differently). Some if 30 rounds were fired by both sides, both were hit and but neither expired, it doesn't count. However suicides and single shot executions do. The numbers aren't lying, it is a mater of how they are collected.

The last figures I saw concerning NYPD (it's been a while) guns was they they were armed with 10 round magazines...and they were still inclined to empty them in shootings.

When I read the OP, the first thing that came to mind was something that rolled into a local ER while I was there with a patient. It was a husband and wife who got into a shootout in their living room during an argument over either the channel to watch or their respective hygiene habits (it wasn't very clear as the trauma unit was pretty busy with cutting and draining and such). From what I gathered, she had a 9mm and he had a .357 Magnum. She fired more shots but had not emptied the magazine, he had to reload once. He scored the telling hit and will tell the definitive tale.

And, before the question is asked...yes, there was alcohol involved

Mike1234567

October 28, 2011, 04:52 PM

Whatever the "statistics" I'm going to have plenty rounds at my immediate disposal. Why would I limit myself and, perhaps, pay the ultimate price for my "miscalculation"?

eazyrider

October 29, 2011, 09:32 AM

When I carry it is a 5 shot revolver. I have no extra ammo. I just don't want to tote around a bunch of stuff. The average number of shots could be 20 and I would still carry the same amount. I have no intention of taking the fight to someone, I just want to be able to get out of the situation should it arise. Maybe I am wrong and if so then I am dead wrong but I can't plan for every contingency.

The odds of me actually having to use my gun are so infinitesimally small that I rarely think about it. The odds of being in a prolonged gunfight are even rarer. Each man makes his own decisions though and if your good with extra ammo, more power to you.

Mike1234567

October 29, 2011, 11:12 AM

To each his own. :)

I'm "guessing" that 5 rounds is enough for most situations which may arise. So, hypothetically speaking, let's say one's odds in "ever" needing to pull a firearm in SD is 1:1000. If only 1:5 of those events require more than 5 rounds then the odds (hypothetically) are 1:5000 for ever needing more firepower. Those are excellent odds but, should I be faced with dirt-bags wanting to kill me for whatever reason, I'm not tipping the scales in their favor. This isn't paranoia... it's just solid conviction/determination that I'll never short-change myself to the advantage of dirt-bags. ;)

ATLDave

October 29, 2011, 11:24 AM

Those are excellent odds but, should I be faced with dirt-bags wanting to kill me for whatever reason, I'm not tipping the scales in their favor. This isn't paranoia... it's just solid conviction/determination that I'll never short-change myself to the advantage of dirt-bags. ;)

Never? So I take it you wear a kevlar vest all the time. Complete with ballistic plates. What's your helmet of choice? Seems like those things would do a lot more to increase your chances of surviving a violent encounter than any number of reload rounds.

Mike1234567

October 29, 2011, 11:30 AM

Never? So I take it you wear a kevlar vest all the time. Complete with ballistic plates. What's your helmet of choice? Seems like those things would do a lot more to increase your chances of surviving a violent encounter than any number of reload rounds.

I don't know what I wrote to deserve that but, whatever it was, I apologize. No, I'm no fanatic... I don't even have a tin foil hat. :)

momano

October 29, 2011, 11:47 AM

Good, provocative, thoughts! My wife and I have have only been carrying since July. This thread will give us lots to consider. Here's something I can contribute to the OP:
http://gunssavelives.net/

ATLDave

October 29, 2011, 11:53 AM

I don't know what I wrote to deserve that but, whatever it was, I apologize. No, I'm no fanatic... I don't even have a tin foil hat. :)

LOL, sorry if that sounded caustic. I was just trying to point out that claims that one would "never" want to compromise on their ability to survive a gunfight, or that we should be prepared for the "worst case scenario," are false, if taken literally. There is always some degree of risk/reward balancing going on, otherwise we'd never leave the house!

One theme of this thread is that all the expense, effort, and energy that goes into preparing to survive a protracted gunfight as a civilian are chasing events that are pretty far out the probability curve. Since we all do risk/reward balancing, probabilities matter.

Bobson

October 29, 2011, 01:05 PM

From OP:
I wonder how often a protracted gunfight, with multiple rounds exchanged, actually breaks out involving one or more non-criminal civilians. Anybody have any data, or even anecdotes, on this?
I have no idea why two non-criminal civilians would be exchanging gunfire.

From OP:
I ask simply because some folks here must clank like a bulldozer walking around, what with all the spare ammo, BUG's, etc. How often does this stuff even come into play in the real world?Like Mike123etc said, the odds are incredibly low. The laymen answer to your question is almost never - maybe once in a lifetime. That being said, it only needs to happen to you once to bring your life to a screeching halt, right? If you aren't prepared for it, the odds that it'll only be once in your lifetime increases exponentially, if you get my drift.

Just as a side note, I think the "number of rounds in a gunfight" debate is pure stupidity. There was a serious lack of reading comprehension skills displayed in this thread.

ATLDave

October 29, 2011, 01:14 PM

Bobson

October 29, 2011, 01:23 PM

Bobson, what you say makes sense. But see my prior exchange with Mike1234567 re: risk/reward. I strongly suspect that wearing a vest and helmet would do more to increase the odds of survival than a reload mag or BUG. Yet virtually no civilians wear them. Why? The cost is too high. They're too inconvenient. They're too conspicuous. They're too expensive and too much trouble. So we decide to accept the risk of leaving our homes unarmored.

The same calculation gets made with various other pieces of equipment. Carrying a gun is about dealing with remote contingencies for most civvies anyway. Carrying two guns is about rare to non-existent permutations of already-remote contingencies. If somebody decides they want to do that, no skin off my nose, and maybe they're right. But based on what information is available, it seems that preparation for a protracted gun battle as a civilian is no more important than preparing for the zombie apocalypse, since both seem equally likely.
I see your obvious point, and I definitely agree with most of what you said (the exception being that a zombie apocalypse is about as likely as a civilian gunfight).

From what I understand, and people I know who carry a firearm, the idea of carrying a BUG is based on the old adage, One is none, two is one. In other words, if you're going to carry a firearm to protect yourself in the remote possibility you'll ever need it, you may as well carry a backup gun for that same unlikely situation. Which makes sense in a certain light, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Like you said, a vest and helmet would likely be far more effective means of defense than a BUG and/or spare mags. Again, I strongly agree, but like I said, you need to draw the line somewhere. There's a fine line between being prepared, and paranoid schizophrenia. For the purposed of the average civilian, I'd say the line falls between carrying a BUG, and wearing a ballistic vest and Kevlar helmet daily. Vests and helmets are expensive, heavy, and cumbersome; not to mention wearing them in public will make you look like you're totally insane. On the other hand, BUGs (which are pretty widely accepted as being snub-nose revolvers because of their compact size and high reliability) are very inexpensive, extremely lightweight, and easy to conceal. The ratio of low cost - low burden - high security (for a BUG) is far better than the ratio of a vest/helmet (high cost - immense burden - mediocre security).

ATLDave

October 29, 2011, 01:52 PM

Bobson, lots to agree with in that post. Two minor quibbles:

1. I didn't say a civilian gunfight was as likely as the zombie apocalypse. I said, for most of us, a protracted gunfight was about equally likely as a zombified cataclysm. An armed confrontation, unfortunately, is measurably more likely.

2. Good points about some of the costs of a BUG versus a vest; social costs count, too. But the old saw "two is one..." is a pretty flimsy reed. After all, if the premise is that guns are so likely to fail that one automatically subtracts one from the total, why isn't the BUG also a zero?

Given the strictures of SD to justify a civilian shooting, I tend to think if one has time to fire the first gun to empty or to a stoppage, realize it, react and draw the BUG... well, the threat will usually have reached you or fled. LEOs have to pursue someone who flees from gunfire. I, as a civilian, have to let them go (then call the cops, and probably puke from adrenaline overload and spend the next 6 hours explaining myself).

Now, it's possible that the costs of carrying a BUG are so low that its virtually-guaranteed uselessness is not a problem. Hey, a free solution to a .0000001% chance problem is still free. And that may be the case for you. But I think it's hard to rationally justify a regular old civilian feeling a need for a BUG, or a fear-based desire to carry three mags.

Bobson

October 29, 2011, 02:30 PM

1. I didn't say a civilian gunfight was as likely as the zombie apocalypse. I said, for most of us, a protracted gunfight was about equally likely as a zombified cataclysm. An armed confrontation, unfortunately, is measurably more likely.
If by protracted, you meant a gunfight over an extended period of time (reference to additional magazines), I still don't agree that it's about as likely as having to deal with zombies. I understand your hyperbole, of course, but I think it's over-dramatic. While extremely unlikely, an extended gunfight isn't at all impossible. On the other hand, flesh-eating, tireless, man-hunting zombies are impossible (though some will disagree).

2. Good points about some of the costs of a BUG versus a vest; social costs count, too. But the old saw "two is one..." is a pretty flimsy reed. After all, if the premise is that guns are so likely to fail that one automatically subtracts one from the total, why isn't the BUG also a zero?
Probably because of a point I'll make later, but for the time being, suffice it to say that I believe, for most people, carrying a gun is nothing more than a means to the end of social anxiety (I don't mean this as an insult). If one is none, and two is also none, carrying a gun doesn't solve their problem.

Now, it's possible that the costs of carrying a BUG are so low that its virtually-guaranteed uselessness is not a problem. Hey, a free solution to a .0000001% chance problem is still free. And that may be the case for you. But I think it's hard to rationally justify a regular old civilian feeling a need for a BUG, or a fear-based desire to carry three mags.
Actually, I don't carry any firearm whatsoever, much less a BUG. I suppose I could throw loaded magazines at an attacker, but I don't carry any of those either. I just meant that I can understand the mindset of someone willing to carry a BUG. However, even if I did carry (and I plan to someday, because I'm working toward a career in law enforcement), I probably won't keep a BUG on my person, unless required to because of my employment, or something along those lines.

I do agree with you that based on the circumstances and guidelines applicable for civilian SD, additional magazines may be unnecessary. That being said, the answer may very well be as simple as someone feeling that they don't need to justify carrying an extra magazine or two, just as they don't need to justify carrying a primary firearm in the first place.

As I said earlier, my personal opinion is that carrying a weapon is more of a peace-of-mind issue than actually maintaining a tool set on one's person at all times. Many people may disagree, but I'm confident that I can debate the point well enough to convince someone in one of the three following points (provided I'm debating a person who understands and appreciates logic - many people nowadays do not):
1) To simply stop carrying altogether,
2) To concede it's [carrying a firearm] primary purpose is to put them at ease in social situations, or
3) To begin carrying large backpacks full of "tools" they'll probably never, ever use. Just like they already do, with the firearm.

Is it that cut and dry? No, there are exceptions to every rule (except zombies. It won't happen :P).

David E

October 29, 2011, 02:33 PM

Carrying a 5-shot snub knowing that it may not be enough shots for a violent encounter is one thing. Thinking that your 5-shot snub holds "twice the average number of shots fired" is quite another.

In any event, it's a good idea to recognize any shortcomings and to be proficient with your chosen defense gun.

ATLDave

October 29, 2011, 02:45 PM

While extremely unlikely, an extended gunfight isn't at all impossible. On the other hand, flesh-eating, tireless, man-hunting zombies are impossible (though some will disagree).

LOL. I'm far from a zombie-phile, but that's partially because rabies basically already does create zombies. All that it would take to cause something functionally equivalent to a zombie outbreak would be a vaccine-resistant strain of rabies to take hold in a human population. Likely? Oh, heck no. About as likely as Joe Average is to become involved in an extended exchange of gunfire. There are some people, like jewelry store owners and armored car guards, who seem to have slightly better/worse odds of such an event, but someone just getting casually mugged? Not worth worrying about in the grand scheme of things.

Bobson

October 29, 2011, 02:50 PM

Then I stand corrected, and my zombie-related knowledge just grew. :P

I need to watch more zombie movies. Always enjoyed em, haven't seen any since 28 Days Later.

Bobson

October 29, 2011, 03:00 PM

Outstanding deductions, and you cover pretty much all the bases between two simple, yet well-thought-out theories, including the active shooter scenario, which can be difficult.

Also, regarding Morta's list:
#51: I am not to use TV Tropes as a source.
#89: I am not to dispel any OC or 10A fallacies.
Where can we see the whole thing? My curiosity is piqued.

TexasRifleman

October 29, 2011, 11:04 PM

This needs to steer back away from zombie-ness please.

ATLDave

October 29, 2011, 11:41 PM

LOL, I was just trying to illustrate how improbable (though not literally impossible) I think protracted gunfights for civilians are. I was trying to come up with something that non-crazy people DON'T spend much time worrying about.

sgt127

October 30, 2011, 12:28 AM

I spoke with a Dallas PD Internal affairs Investigator who responds to Officer involved shootings. He said his first question to the supervisor on scene is always: "How many rounds did the Officer fire?".

If the answer is six or less, it generally means it was a senior Officer that originally carried a revolver, or, still does. Even if he is currently carrying an auto, deep in his psyche, he slows down and keeps a little better track of his rounds fired. Likely not even a concious thought.

If the number is over six, he says it usually means it is a newer Officer that came on the department after auto's became the issue gun and he started his career with a high cap 9mm (or, 357 SIG)

He said its not hard science, just a general observation.

copaup

October 30, 2011, 03:21 AM

Having had the unfortunate experience of being in a gunfight I can state that there is no such thing as an "average gunfight." That said, I carry a spare mag more for malfunctions than for spare ammo. I carry 1 spare mag with either my 229 (13 rounds) or my 3953 (8 rounds) and one speed strip if I carry my 642 (a grand total of 10 rounds including the 5 in the gun). I have no intention of engaging in a long protracted gun battle when I should be hauling my tail in the other direction as fast as possible. Awareness and caution trump loadout every time when it comes to self preservation.

Trust me, if there are multiple assailants and they want to kill you, you will run out of time before you run out of ammo. Most likely it will be up close, in the dark, and you will be taken by suprise.

Rules for a gunfight:
1. Avoid them
2. Make every shot count
3. MOVE!
4. Refer back to rule 1

Kiln

October 30, 2011, 05:13 AM

There is a gun that only takes one shot to kill in almost EVERY shooting that it is used in.

The RPG-7. This piece of Soviet surplus is the ultimate defensive weapon. Lions, tigers, bears, and all armored or undead versions of them will be easily erradicated with just a single shot. Stash it in the trunk or under the seat and if you're attacked...BLAMMO! Threat neutralized.

Warning and disclaimer:

Do not attempt engage targets in close proximity to the user doing so may result in injury or death. Discharging the RPG-7 from within a vehicle is hazardous and should not be attempted. Effective range estimated at 100 meters. Using this weapon against lions, tigers, or bears may result legal actions against the operator of the device for animal cruelty. We are not responsible damage to property or loss of life that may result in improper (or proper) use of this item. The Soviet surplus RPG-7 may not be legal in your country, please check all rules and restrictions before you commit to buying.

Good luck and happy hunting.

Sincerely,

RussiansurplusRPGsales@gmail.com

PzGren

October 30, 2011, 07:04 AM

Who cares really for the statistical average?

If you have ever been in any fight, you will know that not two fights will be the same. You cannot train for "the" fight, you can only train to be the best you can be.

My love for guns and shooting have helped me.

iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns

October 30, 2011, 07:19 AM

One late evening last summer, around 2 am, a conversation between myself and a friend in my living room was interrupted by the sound of gunfire from outside. Two armed individuals had broken into a home at the end of my street, but the homeowner was a legal gun-owner. Thirteen shots were fired between the three involved. One of the offenders bled to death in the front yard, the other died in the hospital. The homeowner was shot in the leg but survived. I wish I knew more, but that's all I could find out, no idea they had revolvers or semi-autos or what, I could certainly tell that it was all handgun fire.

Mike1234567

October 30, 2011, 07:36 AM

LOL, sorry if that sounded caustic. I was just trying to point out that claims that one would "never" want to compromise on their ability to survive a gunfight, or that we should be prepared for the "worst case scenario," are false, if taken literally. There is always some degree of risk/reward balancing going on, otherwise we'd never leave the house!

One theme of this thread is that all the expense, effort, and energy that goes into preparing to survive a protracted gunfight as a civilian are chasing events that are pretty far out the probability curve. Since we all do risk/reward balancing, probabilities matter.

ATLDave... No problem. :)

When I wrote, "I'll never short-change myself to the advantage of dirt-bags", all I meant was I'm not going to go unarmed much of the time nor will I limit myself to a single magazine or cylinder with only 5 or 6 rounds in it. I carry both 10 and 15 round mags for a total of 25 rounds.

summerhelp

October 30, 2011, 11:41 PM

Looking at just the average number of shots fired is not enough in my opinion. You also have to look at the standard deviation. It has been a long time since I have taken a stats class. Let’s just assume that the average number of rounds fired in a gun fight is 3 rounds and see why we can’t just look at the average.
1+1+1+1+5+5+5+5+3+3= an average of 3
10+7+6+1+1+1+1+1+1+1= an average of 3
5+5+5+5+5+1+1+1+1+1= an average of 3
So if you only carried 3 rounds for you gun because that is the average number of rounds fired in a gunfight there is a very good chance that 3 rounds would not be enough, it’s not enough to just look at the average.

eazyrider

October 31, 2011, 07:02 AM

My point is that most of the population doesn't carry anything. So my five shot snub is better than what most have. If I come across a mad man with an AK then I will lose, and so will you with your back up mags. Now my HOME defense gun holds 17 rounds, but that gun sleeps in a drawer and I don't have to carry it around. I make my choice based on where I go everyday. I just don't see the need to carry a bunch of stuff. I am not against extra rounds at all. But I refuse to except that it is a bad idea to not have 20 or more rounds at my disposal at all times. I have a weapon and I know how to use it. That is good enough for me.

Now if my life changes and I see a need to be more heavily armed then I will change accordingly. I could care less about stats. I sometimes even go to the store without, God forbid, a gun. Again each person makes a choice.

SaxonPig

October 31, 2011, 08:39 AM

Anything MIGHT happen but the overwhelming odds are that as a civilian in a gunfight you will face a lone attacker. If there is a group they are cowards who will scatter at the first shot fired. Almost zero chance a street fight will turn into the Battle of the Bulge. Criminals are not trained and motivated soldiers. They are opportunistic cowards. They seek the helpless to victimize. Resist with effective force and they flee.

I have mentioned in the past my one experience in using a firearm to defend myself against criminal attack that resulted in a fatality. I was accosted by an armed robber who carried a 6 shot 22 revolver. I had a Colt Government Model in 45 ACP. I drew and put the first round through his chest, nicking the heart. The next 2 rounds were also in the upper torso. He turned and ran. I fired 3 more rounds missing with all 3. Slowed down for the 7th and final shot and hit him in the right kidney at a range of 50 feet bringing him down. He had pretty much bled out by that point.

Despite holding the loaded gun in his hand he didn't get off a single shot. I suppose the shock of that first gunshot wound disoriented him into being dysfunctional or all he thought about was flight. Remember what I said earlier about criminals not being interested in standing their ground against armed resistance.

Nobody knows for sure how many rounds will be fired in a fight. Too many variables. If I were to offer a guess based on what I hear and read, I suspect about 3-4 is typical. I now carry a 6 shot 357 revolver with two reloads. I feel comfortable.

David E

October 31, 2011, 09:27 AM

Most of the law abiding citizens don't carry anything. Badguys typically carry a deadly weapon of some sort before accosting someone. If you are being attacked, it's probably by an armed badguy, who 40% of the time (or more) there are multiple attackers.

If an AK armed badguy is the problem, jumping to the conclusion that a responsibly armed citizen with a smart gun choice is just as dead as the 5-shot snubby armed good guy is quite a leap. The AK armed badguy won't likely attack from 10 feet or less. The scenario coming to mind is a jihadist shooting up a mall. If your best shot was 50 yds away, a Glock 19 or M&P or 1911 will make that shot all day. A 2" snubby, while capable, won't be as easy to connect with...and you might only get one chance.

Unlikely? Yes, but more possible each day.

eazyrider

October 31, 2011, 09:58 AM

Well David in that scenario, I guess your right. I am going to start carrying my AR to the mall. Good luck with that 50 yard pistol shot under fire. I guess if we are still talking what ifs then we better up the stakes to a 50 yard head shot because if he is a jihadist he probably won't go down on a psychological kill,so you need to make a physical kill. Of course if you don't get one on your first couple of shots then your position is given away. Course that is when body armor with a rifle plate comes in handy.

fastbolt

October 31, 2011, 11:21 AM

This subject is a difficult one for which to get any definitive answers because such statistics are gathered specifically dealing with such things.

Now, of the homicides reported by LE, where private citizens have been determined to have committed a justifiable homicide? (The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.)

The FBI's UCR data contains statistics of what's reported to them by LE. This data can be found by scrolling down the page at the following link, as well as some other data:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

You'll find this data specifically contained within Table 15 on the above page:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls

It can be contrasted with the number of justifiable homicides by LE in Table 14, BTW.

While you'll notice there's a breakdown available of the weapons used by civilians in the justifiable homicides, the number of shots fired isn't listed.

I don't tell folks what I think they should carry in the way of firearms lawfully carried as dedicated defensive weapons. I can only make such decisions for myself.

How I make such decisions for myself is based on a variety of considerations, but mostly it involves the use of my experience & training, and assessing the potential risk I perceive to exist for whatever I'm going to be doing, wherever I'm going to be doing it.

This typically results in me choosing to carry a variety of handguns, but that's mostly because I own, train, practice & qualify with a variety of them (since I've been a firearms instructor for more than 20 years). I could certainly "get by" with fewer, or only one, if need be (another subject).

Suffice to say that depending on the day, my planned activities and where I plan to engage in them, as well as my inclination for even being armed that day, I'll carry a 5-shot .38 Spl or .357 Magnum, or a pistol with a magazine capacity of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 12 rounds. The pistol caliber will be either 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 ACP. Yes, I typically carry spare ammunition in speedloaders, speedstrips or magazines.

Now, that's what I've decided is appropriate for me, depending.

Do I anticipate the possibility of more than a single attacker? Sure.

Does it keep me awake at night? No.

Will the potential sometimes influence my choice in which weapon I choose? Yes, but only so far as it becomes a factor in my regular daily risk assessment and decision of whether I should be armed that day, which varies.

Do I claim to be able to predict the future? Of course not. However, neither am I willing to walk around armed like I'm going to be working a high activity patrol beat and responding to calls of violent crimes in-progress all day or night, either.

That's me and my thoughts, and how they've come to influence my choice when I was carrying an off-duty weapon and now that I'm carrying in retirement. Suit yourself.

I'd think it reasonable to expand such concerns to include the other factors I've often mentioned in such thread topics, though, meaning I think it's prudent for an individual to give some attention and consideration to their own knowledge of the laws involving the use of deadly force and what's involved in lawfully carrying a handgun for defensive, as well as their experience, training, skillset and mindset ... and chosen equipment (holster & weapon). It's just a handgun ...

Remember, you can never call a bullet back once it's fired. Give some thought to being able to accurately & effectively use whatever ammunition is being carried, since there are serious potential consequences for hitting things which aren't the "intended target".

And, yes ... sometimes I'll wonder at folks who have decided to carry more handguns, magazines, speedloaders and ammunition on their person as private citizens than I used to carry when I was working in LE. It's not my decision to make for them, though. I do, however, sometimes wonder about their level of training & skill, as well as their experience when it comes to functioning under stress.

Then again, I wonder about more folks in that regard as it pertains to their ability to operate a motor vehicle on any given day. :scrutiny:

Just my thoughts.

David E

November 1, 2011, 02:11 AM

Well David in that scenario, I guess your right. I am going to start carrying my AR to the mall.

Now that's just asinine.

Good luck with that 50 yard pistol shot under fire.

The point that you miss (accidentally or on purpose) is that some guns are more limited in their effectiveness than others. "A gun is a gun is a gun" philosophy is a false premise from the get-go, but many people still fall under that spell.

A 5-shot snub or sightless .380 may be enough up close against a single attacker, but their effectiveness falls sharply when distance, a difficult shot and/or multiple assailants enter the mix.

Any gun with you beats any gun not, but that doesn't mean all guns are equally effective.

Wanderling

November 22, 2011, 12:18 AM

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but it's hit on something I've been interested in.

A friend of mine is a lawyer, although he's doing mostly corporate law, so he himself says he's not an authority on self defense shootings. However he's made a point that he only carries a gun with a single full mag. He believes that if you ever kill someone in an SD situation which is not 100% clear, having more than one mag on you, or a gun modified in any way to make it more accurate / have a lighter trigger pull, or even having a good knife in addition to the gun, is going to make it much harder to defend the shooting in court. Basically, the lawyer for the other side is going to present you to the jury as a trigger happy Rambo wannabe who maliciously modified his gun to be more deadly, that goes out every day looking for a fight. Don't know if this is true or not, but it definitely doesn't sound far fetched.

David E

November 22, 2011, 12:59 AM

NM Mountainman

November 22, 2011, 01:36 AM

There are two rules of thumb to keep in mind when dealing with statistics:

1) 55 % of all statistics are made up ;-)

2) Statistics are helpful in measuring differences between groups and making decisions involving groups. They usually tell you very little or nothing about specific individuals or specific individual situations.

Statistics about gun fights are useful to LEO agencies to help make decisions about how to equip and train groups of LEO's. The statistics do not help us understand or predict what the next gunfight in the LE agency will be like.

Wanderling

November 22, 2011, 02:12 PM

I hope your friend is a better lawyer than he is a firearms/tactics instructor.

Cops carry reloads, usually more than one. Are they evil for doing so?

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the defendant carried an extra, loaded magazine because, as the police instructor testified, is how he was trained. Indeed, every police officer in America carries one or more reloads on duty and are encouraged to do so off duty as well...."

Enhancements that make the gun more accurate means there's less of a chance if hitting an innocent bystander. I'd rather be on trial for shooting the right guy than for shooting the wrong one because I thought a 27# trigger pull would be somehow easier to defend in court.
Cops can do many things that an ordinary citizen can't.

E.g. imagine that a criminal robs someone at a gunpoint, then runs away. If a cop runs after him, corners him, engages in a firefight and shoots him, the cop is a hero. If an ordinary citizen does it, he'll be prosecuted for manslaughter. This is not his job. A CPL holder only has a gun to protect himself or others in case of immediate danger, once the danger is gone, the shooting is unjustified. In many states, you are required by law to disengage / retreat whenever possible without putting yourself in danger of being shot.

SaxonPig

November 22, 2011, 02:22 PM

A lawyer will try to make an issue of anything. Will it work depends on the judge and jury. Bear in mind that many judged are anti gun and the jury will be selected based on their ignorance about guns.

Sam1911

November 22, 2011, 02:40 PM

A friend of mine is a lawyer, although he's doing mostly corporate law, so he himself says he's not an authority on self defense shootings. However he's made a point that he only carries a gun with a single full mag. He believes that if you ever kill someone in an SD situation which is not 100% clear, having more than one mag on you, or a gun modified in any way to make it more accurate / have a lighter trigger pull, or even having a good knife in addition to the gun, is going to make it much harder to defend the shooting in court. Basically, the lawyer for the other side is going to present you to the jury as a trigger happy Rambo wannabe who maliciously modified his gun to be more deadly, that goes out every day looking for a fight. Don't know if this is true or not, but it definitely doesn't sound far fetched.

We hear that kind of thing frequently. And it does make it clear that your friend is not well-versed in self-defense law. That's understandable -- most lawyers aren't.

A cop can do quite a few things that a citizen is not justified in doing, but carrying reloads and/or spare magazines does not -- at all -- fall into that category.

A presecutor could make nearly any claim s/he wants to about what your choice of equipment and/or ammo says about you. Any defense attorney worth paying will make swiss cheese out of that argument. Especially if your gun and/or ammo is similar to what is carried by the local PD. That's about the most unassailable justification of your selection possible -- in the unlikely event that your equipment choice is even called into question.

Arguing that you should choose a sub-optimal firearm, give up reloads and or fail-safe mags, or otherwise choose your equipment poorly just so you won't look like a "Rambo" is pointless and self-defeating.

Carry a Glock: "What do you think, that you're some kind of COP?"
Carry a SA revolver: "What do you think, that you're some kind of COWBOY?"
Carry a Beretta: "What do you think, that you're some kind of ARMY GUY?"
Carry a DA revolver: "What do you think, that you're DIRTY HARRY?"
Carry a Walther: "What do you think, that you're JAMES BOND?"
Carry a H&K: "What do you think, that you're a NAVY SEAL?"
Carry a Lorcin/Jennings: "What do you think, that you're some kind of GANGSTA?"
Carry a 1911: "What do you think, that you're some kind of CRAZY GUN NUT?"

Whatever. Carry what you shoot best.

Stophel

November 22, 2011, 02:50 PM

eazyrider: "If I come across a mad man with an AK then I will lose"

Not if you're a better shot than he is. Just because he has 30 rounds at his disposal does NOT mean he can use all of them effectively... or any of them, for that matter. And your one shot might well keep him from using all of his. ;)

Greg528iT

November 22, 2011, 03:08 PM

Carry a 1911: "What do you think, that you're some kind of CRAZY GUN NUT?"

That should be someones signature. :)

Loosedhorse

November 22, 2011, 03:34 PM

having more than one mag on you, or a gun modified in any way to make it more accurate / have a lighter trigger pull, or even having a good knife in addition to the gun, is going to make it much harder to defend the shooting in courtCould be.

I've "heard" that having a single-action (1911) gun can make the case more expensive to defend, that having "unusual" ammo (think Harold Fish's 10mm), will, too; etc. Carrying only what your local PD carries for gun and ammo would be easiest to defend (and carrying nothing easier than that!).

Of course, not having a spare mag if you run out of ammo or the gun jams because of a mag problem could get you dead. Weigh the alternatives, and decide.

As to the OP: an "extended" gunfight would require that both parties choose to be in the gunfight for an extended period of time. Easy to see with police, as they are duty-bound to persist, so it will depend on the mood and armament of the criminal(s).

For a private citizen, it could happen if either the attacker or the defender has an ensconsed position, and the only way out for the other party is through that position (that is, if neither party feels they have a safe avenue of retreat until they shoot the other).

Unlikely? Maybe; depends where your gunfight occurs. Not sure I'd want to bet that an extended gunfight couldn't happend to me, especially if all it "costs" me is a magazine on the hip.

mljdeckard

November 22, 2011, 07:16 PM

To assume that you won't need a knife or a reload is just as disingenuous as to assume that nothing bad can happen to you in the first place.

A second magazine has much more to do with clearing a malfunction than having more shots. When you carry a knife and a flashlight, you learn that there are a lot of things they come in handy for besides defensive uses. The reality is, you are going to have to cut a lot more things than you are going to shoot ion real life.

David E

November 22, 2011, 08:56 PM

E.g. imagine that a criminal robs someone at a gunpoint, then runs away. If a cop runs after him, corners him, engages in a firefight and shoots him, the cop is a hero. If an ordinary citizen does it, he'll be prosecuted for manslaughter. This is not his job. A CPL holder only has a gun to protect himself or others in case of immediate danger, once the danger is gone, the shooting is unjustified. In many states, you are required by law to disengage / retreat whenever possible without putting yourself in danger of being shot.

What does ANY of that have to do with carrying a spare reload??

Bobson

November 22, 2011, 09:18 PM

Greg528iT

November 23, 2011, 10:23 AM

In many states, you are required by law to disengage / retreat whenever possible without putting yourself in danger of being shot.
What does ANY of that have to do with carrying a spare reload??

It's an example of how we as citizens operate under different rules than police.
To say,
The local PD carry back ups, therefore I can carry back up magazines.
The local PD can chase down and confront a BG therefore I can chase down and confront a BG.
Uses the same basic logic, but is NOT true in both cases.

Wanderling

November 23, 2011, 10:27 AM

The more I think about this, the more I realize there must be about 100 different ways people might approach the topic in search of an answer.

For me personally, if I carried a weapon daily right now (I don't yet, but plan to soon), I would carry an extra magazine or two. I would also carry my own handloads in my EDC and any spare mag(s), provided that I was as skilled a reloader as many of you are.

People here sometimes playfully mock others for being too paranoid. The recent "gun in the bathroom" thread comes to mind.

I don't care if you EDC a Hi-Point, or if you EDC an Ed Brown Custom 1911, 2 spare mags, strictly handloaded JHPs, and have a SIG P239 strapped to your ankle as a BUG. Both people recognize the potential for being attacked. The only difference is that one is more willing to burden himself to prevent himself from being a victim. Nothing about his equipment makes me think either individual is out looking for trouble.
And if you're on the jury, the guy is lucky.

However I can imagine something like this: "This man carried two - two ! - guns with several ! magazines (insert dramatic gestures and tragic voice by the prosecutor) - and he claimed the was doing it for self defense ! Every day he walked out of his house armed to the teeth with two guns and almost fifty bullets ! And a nasty looking knife ! (presents the "stockpile" to the jury). What do you think he was really up to ?"

Now I picture someone like my mother-in-law on the jury, and it doesn't look good for the defendant.

Remember, it's the shooter/survivor story vs the dead body. There's often no witnesses. So you can look either as a reasonable citizen defending yourself from a deadly thread, or a crazed Rambo-like wannabe roaming the streets armed to his teeth. If you remove the pro-2A people and anti-gun people and only have the everyday citizens on the jury, who have various degrees of common sense but most have never owned or carried a handgun, your "arsenal" may become a very important point in consideration.

I will ask my friend - who's carrying btw- if he knows of any real life trials. That was a debate we've had almost a year ago and I walked out of it convinced in his point of view.

That's partially why I will try to carry my G17 first, when I get my permit. It holds 3x the capacity of a revolver yet it's only a single mag. If I need more than 17 rounds for SD, I'm in such a bad situation that a second or third mag won't help. If it's too difficult to carry it, I may get a smaller gun but with at least 8-9 rounds in the mag. I don't believe I would need more for most any SD.

Pilot

November 23, 2011, 10:45 AM

I carry one mag, and that's in the pistol. Whether its 15+1 or 8+1 capacity, I feel well armed. I just don't feel like having Batman's Utility Belt on me when I am doing by daily stuff.

Loosedhorse

November 23, 2011, 10:59 AM

The local PD carry back ups, therefore I can carry back up magazines.
The local PD can chase down and confront a BG therefore I can chase down and confront a BG.
Uses the same basic logic, but is NOT true in both cases.I don't follow your logic.

Of course a private citizen can carry back-up magazines. Of course a private citizen can chase down and confront a bad guy (for example, if he's abducted your spouse, and you are in hot pursuit).

How would any of that imply a belief that a private citizen should, for example, stand on a corner with a radar gun, and issue citations for speeding?

Obviously, when someone here talks about LE carry spares, they are talking about the tactical decision of an entire profession whose job it is to stay out of gunfights when they can, and only engage in them when they must--same as non-LE.

What's different between LE and non-LE are the parameters around "must," not around tactics. Saying we should all consider the tactical decisions of the police is NOT the same as suggesting we have full police powers (and indemnities).However I can imagine something like this: "This man carried two - two ! - guns with several ! magazines (insert dramatic gestures and tragic voice by the prosecutor) - and he claimed the was doing it for self defense ! Every day he walked out of his house armed to the teeth with two guns and almost fifty bullets ! And a nasty looking knife ! (presents the "stockpile" to the jury). What do you think he was really up to ?" Absolutely a possibility. And if you are unable to articulate your reasons for carrying reloads, etc. to a jury, or unwilling to hire recognized experts who will explain why such carry is "routine good practice," then the risk from such a prosecutor's claim is high indeed.

Sure: carrying reloads may mean that your eventual defense will be more expensive. It may even mean you have a higher risk of your defense failing. And not carrying reloads may mean your risk of being killed or crippled by your attacker is higher.

Judge the risks for yourself and act accordingly--I'm pretty sure that's what we all do already.

David E

November 23, 2011, 02:58 PM

It's an example of how we as citizens operate under different rules than police.
To say,
The local PD carry back ups, therefore I can carry back up magazines.
The local PD can chase down and confront a BG therefore I can chase down and confront a BG.
Uses the same basic logic, but is NOT true in both cases.

I guess I missed your whole "logic" part....

I carry a spare reload not because cops do or that they carry backup guns, but because it's a prudent thing to do.

Every training class I've taken expected you to have at least two spare mags on your belt.

"Why did you'd have an extra reload?"

"Because that's how I was trained."

They may try to make me out as some evil dude who premeditated shooting someone in defense of his life, but silly arguments like that can easily be shot down.

A common mistake people make here is placing Problem #2 (explaining your actions in court) ahead of Problem #1 (surviving the deadly encounter)

Greg528iT

November 23, 2011, 03:46 PM

I guess you guys forgot about DavidEs response to
Originally Posted by Wanderling View Post
E.g. imagine that a criminal robs someone at a gunpoint, then runs away. If a cop runs after him, corners him, engages in a firefight and shoots him, the cop is a hero. If an ordinary citizen does it, he'll be prosecuted for manslaughter. This is not his job. A CPL holder only has a gun to protect himself or others in case of immediate danger, once the danger is gone, the shooting is unjustified. In many states, you are required by law to disengage / retreat whenever possible without putting yourself in danger of being shot.

I was only following the line of thought that had been previously posted about
If Law enforcement carrys back up magazines I should as well, to Wanderling's post that, Law Enforcement can and are expected to chase down a suspect and shoot if required too, having tried to rob someone and fled. (I didn't escalate it to, kidnapping a wife or child)

If you chase down a suspect, corner and shoot him when no ones life was danger after he fled, you can BET you will be charged with something.
I was ONLY addressing the "just because a law enforcement officer does it, make it perfectly acceptable for me to do likewise" argument.

As we know, there are many many instances where a law enforcement officer crosses the line from acceptable to illegal.

Wanderling

November 23, 2011, 04:19 PM

I guess I missed your whole "logic" part....

I carry a spare reload not because cops do or that they carry backup guns, but because it's a prudent thing to do.

Every training class I've taken expected you to have at least two spare mags on your belt.

"Why did you'd have an extra reload?"

"Because that's how I was trained."

They may try to make me out as some evil dude who premeditated shooting someone in defense of his life, but silly arguments like that can easily be shot down.

A common mistake people make here is placing Problem #2 (explaining your actions in court) ahead of Problem #1 (surviving the deadly encounter)

No, both are very serious problems. Ending up dead is worse than serving a murder sentence & having all of your family assets go towards paying off the dead robber's relatives and attorneys on both sides.

It's a decision everyone has to make on their own, based on the factors at hand.

To me, having a 5 shot revolver is probably borderline; a gun with 8-9-10 rounds is enough; a gun with 15-17 rounds - which is about 3 times the capacity of a revolver, and double the capacity of a WW2 era auto - is more than enough and there's no reason to feed the potential sharks. But then I don't expect to be involved into a prolonged shootout with a gang of Glock-wielding gangstas reloading their 17 rd mags. In a typical SD situation, based on what I read, I'd expect to face one or two assailants who will retreat after the first couple of shots are fired. There's been some info posted here, that in most cases people involved into a shooting would empty their entire mag but not reload; which seems to make the mag capacity more important than the number of spare mags.

Stophel

November 23, 2011, 05:07 PM

People seem to be more terrified of lawyers than drugged-up armed robbers and rapists and gangbangers.

Loosedhorse

November 23, 2011, 08:46 PM

I was only following the line of thought that had been previously posted about...

...you chase down a suspect, corner and shoot him when no ones life was danger after he fled, you can BET you will be charged with something.
I am not sure if you are claiming that your line of argument (since we don't have police duties/powers we shouldn't carry spare ammo) is cogent, or claiming that the fact that it is uncogent isn't really your fault, because you're only parrotting Wanderling.

I can only repeat: private citizens and police share some strategic goals for an armed encounter (like survival), but not others (like apprehension of the suspect). For our common goals (like survival), we can expect our strategies and tactics to be similar; so private citizens can use LE's tactical decisions (like carrying spare ammo) as a valid guide.

For the goals we do not share, we can expect our strategic decisions (like whether or not to pursue) to be different. The fact that we do not share all goals does not mean we would not share tactics concerning our shared goals.

So: any such argument (that since private citizens do not generally have the power and duty to pursue suspects therefore private citizens should not carry spare ammo) is specious.which seems to make the mag capacity more important than the number of spare mags.Unless, again, your mag fails.

Greg528iT

November 23, 2011, 10:42 PM

I am not sure if you are claiming that your line of argument

I was clarifying! Many of the threads were linking.. "if police do it, so should I" I was trying to clarify why Wanderlings post was related.
David E's
What does ANY of that have to do with carrying a spare reload??

but since you go on and on and on

By the level of your paranoia, I have to ask. Do you wear body armor?
You seem so very concerned about getting into a many round firefight, I'd think you'd be safer wearing a bullet proof vest. I've found them online, pretty cheap when you consider the price of your life.

Loosedhorse

November 23, 2011, 10:47 PM

I know this wasn't directed at me, but...Do you wear body armor?Only at public shooting ranges. :D

(Actually, that's true. And I do keep it in ready in the bedroom, next to the shotgun.)

Wanderling

November 24, 2011, 09:47 AM

I think this whole discussion is getting convoluted.

Here's a simple summary: if you ever have to defend yourself using deadly force, you have to be prepared not only for the encounter, but also for the inevitable investigation, possible criminal prosecution, and even more possible civil lawsuit. (Unless you're in the few states that have Castle Doctrine, if it works the way I think it does).

If it was only about protecting yourself with no regards to what happens next, then why even bother about getting a CPL License ? Just carry illegally. Of course this would be stupid and wrong.

If you get attacked you may get killed. This is the worst possible outcome.

If you successfully defend yourself from an attack, then are prosecuted and subsequently sued, you may spend the rest of your life (or the large part of it) in prison among real criminals, and have your family go bankrupt. This is the second worst outcome.

Even if you are cleared from government prosecution, in some states (most I think) you are still open to the civil lawsuit by the relatives of the deceased. It is going to be very expensive regardless of the outcome, and you still may be financially ruined if you lose.

If you're ever judged by the jury, you have to ask yourself how a lay person with no knowledge of self defense concepts or prior exposure to handguns outside of Hollywood will see your actions leading to, during, and after the shooting. Most of them have no basic understanding of guns, or magazines, or common vs uncommon gun modifications. Most of them really don't know the difference between a 5 shot revolver and 17 shot automatic pistol. There's no telling which way they can be swayed. Now, I have served on the jury twice, and I've seen, in both cases, the people with clear heads and good common sense leading the jury in the right direction (proud to say I was one of them ;) ). I also met some people whom I wouldn't trust to break up an elementary school fight. Power hungry hockey moms, well intentioned but terribly disengaged from the real world old ladies, guys with a huge chip on their shoulder who seemed to be bent on sending someone to prison just to make someone else's life miserable. It's a scary world inside the jury room.

Now, I've never considered how a person with spare clips of ammo or modified gun will be seen by then, until I talked to my friend; but this made sense, based on what I've observed.

So, I believe there should be a balance between been well prepared, and being seen as "dressed to kill" by the jury. What that balance is, everyone should decide for themselves. Also there are some states where in case of justifiable self defense, you can't be sued in a civil court. My state isn't one of them.

armoredman

November 24, 2011, 01:17 PM

http://www.galls.com/google/style-BP385-general_catalog-galls-lite-contour-level-iiia-body-armor

Cheaper than the price of a good sidearm. I do have a vest that I usually only wear to Dept range - some of my fellow staff make me more nervous than Joe Sixpack! Massad Ayoob used to recommend a raid style vest with cell phone, flashlight and spare mag for a "roll out kit" to use in the home.

BTW, in this state concealed carry of a rifle is completely legal. Actually, concealed carry of ANY lawfully possessed firearm is completely legal, without a permit, but if you can fit a Lahti down your pants, PLEASE do NOT post pictures. :D We may also carry multiple firearms concealed legally, and multiple magazines of whatever size the manufacturer wished to produce.

I occasionally carry two guns, and I always carry spare ammo. My choice, and I doubt the philosopher who poster earlier could ever talk me out of my sidearm. ;) See, I walk among thousands of convicted felons daily armed with pepper spray, a radio and wits, but I chose to augment my personal protection when outside the wire.

aryfrosty

November 25, 2011, 02:48 AM

I suspect that personal preference should dictate how much ammo one carries. Personally, I don't want to "clank like a tank" when I walk, but I heard a long time ago that, "nobody ever walks away from a gunfight thinking, ' I brought too much ammunition' ". So maybe there is a happy medium in there somewhere. I started carrying on the job in 1971 and in Appalachian Georgia on 3rd shift you might be 45 minutes to an hour from getting backup and folks then, as now, would shoot at you. If you had to deal with a problem a couple of boxes on the front seat of the car or a case in the trunk wouldn't do much good so I began to carry as many spare 1911 mags as I could without looking stupid. I settled on 6 spare mags then and I usually carry at least two now that I'm retired. "Situational Ethics" rules. The later advent of hi cap pistols and mags helped considerably as I can now carry my Para P-10.45 and one mag and have 21 rounds. I like these posts because the discussions can get lively. But, if anyone disagrees with me then pile on in. I ain't getting my feelings hurt.

Ben86

November 26, 2011, 12:10 PM

I carry one extra mag just in case. I don't expect a protracted gunfight (even most LE gunfights are not long drawn out events requiring lots of ammo), but it's good to have just in case. I usually carry my Glock 26 with 1 extra mag, giving me 20 rounds. I'm comfortable with that for SD purposes.

JohnBiltz

November 26, 2011, 03:35 PM

When I started carrying over 2 years ago, I carried a G26 with a spare magazine. Then I stopped carrying the spare for about a year. I'm not going to carry one on my waist. Now, I'm carrying a spare again. It has more to do with how I'm dressed than anything else. I don't feel more safe with a spare magazine. I don't feel underarmed without one. I just have more pockets. I've said this before and I believe it, I've never had a magazine failure with a Glock. I seriously believe 10-12 rounds is the enough for how many rounds you may need. I think I carry the spare more than anything else so I can reload when it is over and not be waiting for the police with an empty gun.

Loosedhorse

November 26, 2011, 08:49 PM

If you're ever judged by the jury, you have to ask yourself how a lay person with no knowledge of self defense concepts or prior exposure to handguns outside of Hollywood will see your actions leading to, during, and after the shooting.Technically, the jury will be asked to decide whether you acted reasonably and prudently, given what you knew at the time.

If you had special knowledge as the result of training, and can document that training, you should be allowed to similarly educate the jury about what you knew.

Example: suppose you shoot an attacker with a knife who was 15 feet away. The "lay" jury may initially feel that you were in no danger: because the attacker couldn't touch you from 15 ft, you were "out of knife range." But we all know that any qualified instructor--preferrably the one who trained you, or the one who trains the local PD--would be able to testify that (as per Tueller) you were "in range" of the knife-attacker and in immediate danger.

Now, some might say that doesn't matter: don't ever shoot someone with a knife unless they're close enough to touch you, because the lay jury may not understand. Even if your failure to shoot when you could have ends up killing you.

And some may say don't ever carry a reload, because a jury may not understand. Even if your failure to carry a spare mag ends up killing you.

No perfect answer; so take whichever risk you prefer.