Is 6 Shots Really Enough?


PDA






Pages : [1] 2 3

LouisianaGunner12
March 2, 2013, 08:27 PM
My daily carry is a S&W Model 19 blued with a 4" barrel, loaded with 125 grain loads, with a Glock 26 as backup.


I used to never second guess that 6 shots was enough until I started reading other opinions on the internet :D

Now I'm not so sure. I love my revolver and have shot so many thousands of rounds through it that it feels like an extension of my hand, something that I've never felt with higher capacity semi autos. I am confident that I can make meaningful hits with my 19 in a self defense situation. But what about if there are multiple attackers? What if I miss? What if, what if, what if?That's why I started carrying a G26 as backup, as much as I dislike the plastic little thing. But what if I don't have enough time to draw my backup? The uncertainty is maddening.

Am I just letting this (and the internet) get to my head? Should I not be concerned with my 6 shots?

If you enjoyed reading about "Is 6 Shots Really Enough?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Coop45
March 2, 2013, 08:38 PM
Have you considered naval gunfire? No, I wouldn't trust those sailors either. It would seem to me that after a couple of their pals had been ventilated the thing the bad guys would be thinking would be something about not getting ventilated too.

HKGuns
March 2, 2013, 08:47 PM
Don't listen to the Mall Nija's. A single well placed shot is all you are likely to need. Keep your wits about you under duress and your six gun will be plenty.

OptimusPrime
March 2, 2013, 08:49 PM
May I speak for Coop here: the other bad guys will run away.

rcmodel
March 2, 2013, 08:49 PM
If you subscribe to the "Aimed Fire" school of gunfighting?

6 in a revolver or 7 in a 1911 and a spare mag or speed-loader or two is more then enough.

If you go with the "Spray & Pray" school of gunfighting?
3 or 4 17 round mags is not enough.

I'm old school though.

5 in a J-Frame is enough, if I don't want to clank when I walk.
And keep stopping to pull up my pants and patting myself in the obvious places to print to see if I dropped anything getting out of the car, or out of a restaurant.

rc

LouisianaGunner12
March 2, 2013, 09:54 PM
I have considered the 627 with 8 shots, but I much prefer my trusty model 19. Plus, 2 shots isn't that big a difference.

KenW.
March 2, 2013, 10:07 PM
I routinely carry a 5-shooter and feel quite comforted.

PabloJ
March 2, 2013, 10:07 PM
Six shots are plenty. If you ever hear gun shots run away from the sound not toward it.

bainter1212
March 2, 2013, 10:11 PM
If you start worrying about every single contingency, you will end up carrying a Glock with 25 mag pouches on your belt, and constantly carrying around a huge pack full of survival gear everywhere you go. You have to draw a line somewhere. Let the internet nutjobs spout whatever they want, and do what you are comfortable with. Half the guys on the internet who spout out all these rules about combat, engagements etc are 37 yrs old, sitting in their mom's basement and don't know what the heck they are talking about.
Be content that you are better armed than 99% of the people around you, and the bad guys will be just as scared of your sixgun as they would be of an AR.

lowercase
March 2, 2013, 10:12 PM
6 shots? :scrutiny:

I usually roll with a 5-shooter.

If that's not enough, I guess I'll find out the hard way.

lobo9er
March 2, 2013, 10:12 PM
I throw hazard to the wind and EDC a 380!

420Stainless
March 2, 2013, 10:14 PM
Should be unless you or your friends do business with people that like to settle accounts with a drive by. Or one heck of a big riot breaks out around you. The first doesn't apply to me and I will take my chances with the second. Six is all my favorite carry holds and I may move to five sometimes if I like the way my new Taurus .44 Special shoots.

Droid noob
March 2, 2013, 10:16 PM
I've carried my LCR as my primary before and just feel under gunned when I do. Before all these mass murders started happening, I didn't feel that way. I know, my chances of being in that situation are very small. I just don't feel comfortable playing the odds though. It's just my preference. I carry a g26 with g17 spare mag. My school of thought is better to have it and not need it.

PabloJ
March 2, 2013, 10:25 PM
Should be unless you or your friends do business with people that like to settle accounts with a drive by. Or one heck of a big riot breaks out around you. The first doesn't apply to me and I will take my chances with the second. Six is all my favorite carry holds and I may move to five sometimes if I like the way my new Taurus .44 Special shoots.
Common sense dictates that when faced with major riot one should JOIN the rioters until safe exit from the crowd is possible.

rcmodel
March 2, 2013, 10:27 PM
I just don't feel comfortable playing the odds though.Boy, me too!

I carry an umbrella when it isn't raining, in case it does.

And I attach copper ground strap on the umbrella when it is raining, just in case I might get hit by lightening.

But I'm not a risk taker.

I carry a 6-shot .380, or 5-shot S&W along with the umbrella too.

rc

JohnKSa
March 2, 2013, 10:34 PM
It's probably enough unless you're confronted with multiple determined bad guys. Then the odds start to look pretty grim once you factor in typical gunfight hit/miss rates and the need to connect more than once with a handgun round to put a determined attacker down.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=665883

Stress_Test
March 2, 2013, 10:35 PM
Just for s**** and grins, I've carried my LCR in my jeans front pocket, and my M&P .45c inside the waistband, both on the left side.

NO, it's not comfortable! :D

Also I look like a stroke victim when I move and bend due to all the weight on that side (not very flexible, you know).

Going out the door armed up like the Punisher sounds good until you actually try it!

Stress_Test
March 2, 2013, 10:37 PM
It's probably enough unless you're confronted with multiple determined bad guys. Then the odds start to look pretty grim once you factor in typical gunfight hit/miss rates and the need to connect more than once with a handgun round to put a determined attacker down.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=665883
Also, way I look at it, if you've got three guys shooting at you, you're not likely to live long enough to expend all the ammo in a 15-17 round mag anyway...

Deaf Smith
March 2, 2013, 10:39 PM
My daily carry is a S&W Model 19 blued with a 4" barrel, loaded with 125 grain loads, with a Glock 26 as backup.


I used to never second guess that 6 shots was enough until I started reading other opinions on the internet :D

Now I'm not so sure. I love my revolver and have shot so many thousands of rounds through it that it feels like an extension of my hand, something that I've never felt with higher capacity semi autos. I am confident that I can make meaningful hits with my 19 in a self defense situation. But what about if there are multiple attackers? What if I miss? What if, what if, what if?That's why I started carrying a G26 as backup, as much as I dislike the plastic little thing. But what if I don't have enough time to draw my backup? The uncertainty is maddening.

Am I just letting this (and the internet) get to my head? Should I not be concerned with my 6 shots?
If you are a fast and good shot then sure a six shooter will do.

If you are crummy lousy shot I doubt anything will do.

The semi-automatics do best for those who have modest skills. In their hands it will improve their hit potential.

And keep in mind the most important shot fired in self defense is the FIRST ONE and not the tenth or fifteenth one!

Now with that being said I nomalry pack a Glock sub-compact. 9mm, .40, or .357 Sig. All are fine. Ammo content from 9 to 11 rounds. I tend to just put 10 in my 26 and nine rounds in the other two. Then either a spare mag or a small pocket Kel-tec P32 as the 'spare'. But on other occasions I carry a S&W J Centennial 642. Yes 5 shots.

But folks, I shoot weekly and have expert or above ratings in IDPA and been to many a shooting school. Shooting and martial arts are my hobbies. Been that way for over 30 years.

So will six do? For some yes. But be realistic about your shooting skills and what you can do. I could pack a S&W K frame if I wanted to (I sure have enough of them) but I mostly pack a Glock.

Deaf

rcmodel
March 2, 2013, 10:40 PM
if you've got three guys shooting at you, you're not likely to live long enough to expend all the ammo in a 15-17 round mag anyway...Unless they are all shooting Gansta Style sideways, and you are shooting gun upright using the front sight!

Then, you will most likely win every time.

rc

JohnKSa
March 2, 2013, 10:40 PM
Also, way I look at it, if you've got three guys shooting at you, you're not likely to live long enough to expend all the ammo in a 15-17 round mag anyway...I make that point more than once in the thread I linked to in my post. However, there's a lot of real estate between 6 rounds and 15 rounds.

joeschmoe
March 2, 2013, 10:44 PM
The purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to your carbine.

Haxby
March 2, 2013, 10:45 PM
I have never heard of a good-guy-private-citizen losing a gunfight because he ran out of ammunition.

PabloJ
March 2, 2013, 10:48 PM
The purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to your carbine.
The ONLY purpose of sidearm is that one does not have to beg for their life. That is why as private citizen no matter how many rounds you have the only smart thing to do is to run AWAY from sound of gunshots.

orionengnr
March 2, 2013, 10:52 PM
Yep. Carry what you shoot well and are confident in.

Practice with it regularly, and make sure your shots count. As a wise man once said, "You can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight".

There seem to be about a bazillion people who think that 5 rounds from a 642 are more than enough. Who am I to argue? They are far better prepared than 95% of the general population.

joeschmoe
March 2, 2013, 10:54 PM
The ONLY purpose of sidearm is that one does not have to beg for their life. That is why as private citizen no matter how many rounds you have the only smart thing to do is to run AWAY from sound of gunshots.


You try to outrun bullets while I return fire with a carbine.

Stress_Test
March 2, 2013, 10:55 PM
The purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to your carbine.
I was going to write a long reply to that statement, but the short version is:

I'd say it's one of those oft-repeated statements that sounds good but just isn't reality when you stop and think about it.

I think the original intent of the statement was to emphasize the rifle (or shotgun) superiority to a handgun.

Armchair Warrior
March 2, 2013, 10:59 PM
BUY A SHOTGUN JUST BUY A SHOTGUN
Guess I need to buy another shotgun. I wouldn't want to be out of lockstep with the VP.

PabloJ
March 2, 2013, 11:08 PM
You try to outrun bullets while I return fire with a carbine.
No.

joeschmoe
March 2, 2013, 11:15 PM
I was going to write a long reply to that statement, but the short version is:

I'd say it's one of those oft-repeated statements that sounds good but just isn't reality when you stop and think about it.

I think the original intent of the statement was to emphasize the rifle (or shotgun) superiority to a handgun.
I disagree. I think it's the opposite. It emphasizes the inherent weakness of the handgun and the need to keep a carbine near by. So I keep a carbine near by because of that motto. A hand gun on me, and a carbine near by.
It answers the question. If six shots is not enough then you should be fighting your way to a carbine. That's the direction I'll be running.

David E
March 2, 2013, 11:32 PM
I disagree. I think it's the opposite. It emphasizes the inherent weakness of the handgun and the need to keep a carbine near by. So I keep a carbine near by because of that motto. A hand gun on me, and a carbine near by.
It answers the question. If six shots is not enough then you should be fighting your way to a carbine. That's the direction I'll be running.

A rifle is better than a handgun. It has more range, power and accuracy. But it lacks convenience whereas the handgun does not.

I, too, have become jaded when I read the "purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to your long gun," schtick as it's just silly in most circumstances.

If I am faced with an immediate threat that requires deadly force, THAT is my focus, not trying to get to any other gun. If I'm in the parking lot 10 feet from my car that has an AR in it when I am confronted by two crazy guys with knives, I'm handling the situation with my handgun.

Stress_Test
March 3, 2013, 01:13 AM
It also depends on whether you're at home or out and about.

At HOME, yes, a long gun nearby makes perfect sense. I keep my Mossberg 590 ready to go at home, upstairs, and keep a pistol at hand. If at all possible, I'll fall back to the 590 instead of trying to fight with the handgun.

However, out and about, at best I'd have to keep the shotgun in the car. Then, as David says, actually getting to the long gun in the car isn't likely to be an option. If I had time to do that then I'd have time to drive away and skip the gunfight.

CajunBass
March 3, 2013, 08:22 AM
The purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to your carbine.

So, I'm supposed to fight my way all the way back home? :confused: Because that's where my carbine is.

To the OP. No one can answer your question. You just have to draw a line somewhere. Only you can decide where that line is for you.

jad0110
March 3, 2013, 08:34 AM
Also, way I look at it, if you've got three guys shooting at you, you're not likely to live long enough to expend all the ammo in a 15-17 round mag anyway...

Trick is, to increase the odds that the other BGs will flee, you've got to very, very quickly determine who the leader of the pack is and plug him FIRST. Seeing the rabble rouser go down first hopefully will result in the others scattering, but as always, there are no guarantees. But I do agree, if you end up in a situation with 3+ determined, suicidal attackers armed with guns themselves and there is no cover or even concealment in sight you are likely screwed, regardless of the handgun you carry. I read a statement years ago that in such a dire situation (outnumbered, 3+ attackers with guns not backing down, no cover, no where to run), the additional rounds in a hi cap semi auto aren't going to save you, but you'll at least be able to take more of them with you.

It is the indian, not the arrow. As always, a skilled handgunner that can keep their wits more or less intact can make about any gun that is mechanically sound work for them. The opposite is also true. I've heard some opine that the most common failure in a gunfight is running out of ammo. Others say it is running out of time. I tend to agree with the latter, which is indicative of a lack of training, proper mindset, etc. "Software" failures, in other words.

IMHO, landing that first shot is critical. Not only will the fight hopefully end sooner, but you won't be spraying bullets all over the landscape (I'm in a fairly urban setting, so to me, missing is NOT an option). I therefore prefer handguns that are good point shooters in my hands. For me, those handguns happen to be S&W K Frames with 3" or longer barrels, L Frames, N Frame, the Ruger Six Series and 5" 1911s. For the next guy it might be Glocks.

jmr40
March 3, 2013, 09:02 AM
With your setup you actually have 17 rounds on hand. While 6 is usually enough, no one who ever survived a gunfight has ever said afterward that they wished they had had less ammo. Shots miss, hits don't always put people down and there may well be more than 1 attacker. If I were in your shoes I'd lose the revolver and just carry the G-26 and 1 spare mag. You will be better protected, and be carrying a lot less weight.

420Stainless
March 3, 2013, 09:04 AM
Common sense dictates that when faced with major riot one should JOIN the rioters until safe exit from the crowd is possible.
Certainly true. I was thinking of the odd situation in which Reginald Denny found himself in, or anyone could possibly find themselves in if visiting an area away from home when the spark ignites. I don't worry about it, but it could happen and I might end up wishing I had more than six in that circumstance.

Tcruse
March 3, 2013, 09:31 AM
The number required is dependent on the threat and your skill. You have to answer those questions for yourself every time you pick up your gun. Most of the people that I know have different choices from day to day. I have different choice when going I in the RV than when going to Walmart for coffee cream.

TonyDedo
March 3, 2013, 09:33 AM
until I started reading other opinions on the internet

As my mechanic likes to say, "well there's your problem!"

allin
March 3, 2013, 09:47 AM
Just reading through this it occurred to me that it depends . Are you a LEO or serving overseas? If so you probabaly need max firepower. Are you a reg citizen who lives in a fairly decent neighborhood and are concerned about personal protection? If that is the case, how often have you needed your weapon and was it sufficient? I have a ccw and multiple choices for carry, I am lucky enough that my wife hasn't totalled up all of the guns I have purchased. I have mutiple length revolvers (38 spec & 357) and a good selection of 9mm and 45acp semis. I tend to carry a 3 " snub j frame 38 spec. It is comfy and I feel confident with it. I shoot it regularly and can hit fairly well out to 15 yards. Not an expert shot by any means but just OK. I follow a lot of internet threads and read many mags pertaining to this subject. I do think there are a lot of "mall ninjas" out there who may be a little over the top?
Just my 2 cents.

vito
March 3, 2013, 09:50 AM
Personally I think a two round derringer is probably enough, but I prefer my 5 round J frame snubby. Consider this: everyone who participates on this and other gun forums are much more involved in the gun culture than the average citizen, and despite all the theorizing about what is needed for self defense, few posts every mention actually having to do so. And when you recognize that so much of what is posted on these threads is just bragging b***s***, its even more amazing how rarely a post talks about actually having to fire rounds in self defense. What that tells me is what I really already know, that the likelihood of me EVER needing to use a concealed handgun is EXTREMELY low. I also recall some FBI statistics from years ago stating that most shooting incidents involve 1-3 shots total. Sure, its nice to have dozens of rounds at the ready, and if it makes you feel better you might want to carry a BUG, and maybe a third gun to back up the back-up gun, plus a knife, a bull whip and some rope, etc. but I tend to believe that having any firearm with any amount of ammo is probably enough for 99.999% of us. Even a 2-shot 22LR derringer is probably enough. I like my Ruger LCP with 6+1, and my S&W J-frame snubby with 5, and have never felt helpless or under-armed. I also have a Ruger sr40c with 9+1 for concealed carry, but any of these guns gives me the sense of security that I am seeking: it is not dependent on the number of rounds.

C0untZer0
March 3, 2013, 10:15 AM
I've known people who drove pick up trucks, and in the time they owned the truck they never used it to haul materials, furniture or anything like that. The things they bought at Home Depot the few times they went there would have fit into the regular trunk of most cars. I never told them they shouldn't have purchased a pick up truck.

Everyone one is different. I've seen people's EDC setup ups that include a full size 40 S&W, a mag pouch for two 15rd mags, two knives, a bug and two flashlights.

Some people have only a tiny .22 magnum revolver.

I plan on carrying a Rohrbaugh R9 in a pocket holster. I'm not going to equip myself to be 100% prepared for 100% of possible scenarios ALL the time.

I am using the 7 & 2 approach.

If I can't resolve something with 7 rounds I'll resort to 2(feet).

And don't forget when you're running away SERPENTINE !!!

seeker_two
March 3, 2013, 10:18 AM
Any time the "multiple assailant" question comes up, a lot of factors get argued. One factor that doesn't get argued enough is TIME. Will you have time to get hits on multiple assailants before one of them gets hits on you? If I'm attacked by three BGs, I might....MIGHT....have time to get one shot into each assailant before one of them gets shots on me. If one shot each is enough to stop them, problem solved. If not, I won't have time to worry about the next problem.

This might be a situation where something like a Taurus Judge/PD could come in handy. Firing 3-4 000Buck with each trigger press into each assailant could tilt the odds in your favor.

scaatylobo
March 3, 2013, 10:28 AM
To all that have never had a round sent their way - I PROMISE that should you ever be so unfortunate YOU WILL BE VERY SORRY THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE A BAZOOKA IN YOUR POCKET.

That being my observation,please to the O.P.,note all who have been under attack or even seen a REAL attack about to happen - they dont walk lightly and dont bother about the extra few ounces either.

I wore a gun belt and ballistic vest for almost 30 years,and yes a BUG too.

And many was the time I was THRILLED for all that I had.

And as an offduty I tried to go light,but scared the 'you know what' outta myself on a few close calls.

Now I am a civilian and yes,I can see that 99% of the time all you need is your car keys to enjoy the day.

Its that 1% of the time that you will be VERY sorry if you were not as prepared as possible.

the truly sad part is,NO ONE can tell you when or where that will or could happen.

If I lived in rural Wy or anyplace such as that,I would go lighter than I do.

But I live in a very small city in a very residential neighborhood,and I have seen what can happen in any place people reside and go wackadoodle [ on the news ,and in my own hood ].

So I look very respectable and dress like a retired old man, DO NOT BE FOOLED.

Hope you never find out,but sounds to me that if you have a BUG, your ready.

Droid noob
March 3, 2013, 10:32 AM
Boy, me too!

I carry an umbrella when it isn't raining, in case it does.

And I attach copper ground strap on the umbrella when it is raining, just in case I might get hit by lightening.

But I'm not a risk taker.

I carry a 6-shot .380, or 5-shot S&W along with the umbrella too.

rc

I know, I know.

But I don't think any victim knew they were going to be attacked when they went out that day.

witchhunter
March 3, 2013, 10:36 AM
I don't think I will ever be attacked by more than 5 or 6 at once! But, where I live we all carry, I should get some help or offer some if we get attacked by a mob (I hope). Around here, I carry my LCP or a J frame almost always. 1911 or 66 in the truck. Spare ammo or mags in the truck. When I first got my CCW, I carried "battle ready", now quite a little less.

Stress_Test
March 3, 2013, 10:41 AM
Well it's almost a moot point for me because the question becomes "what can I hide under my clothing" rather than how big a gun (or guns) can I carry.

And I can't hide much unless I'm wearing an overcoat, and living in the southeast that's not a year round thing anyway.

Hence the snubnose .38sp I often carry.

I'd like to try a Glock 26 but good luck finding one now at any reasonable price!

spm
March 3, 2013, 12:45 PM
It seems we have strayed from the OPs original query; six shot revolver vs a higher capacity auto. I have alway believed Col. Cooper's comment speaks volumes ..."If you can't solve the problem with six shots, you probably can't solve the problem." I carry a Colt DS am confident that is enough. Having said all this, I acknowlege that everyone is different. There are no wrong anwers, only differnt perspectives. Best to all.

Certaindeaf
March 3, 2013, 12:52 PM
Yea, a spine breaker through the spine will.. break the spine, if you can hit it. the goal with anything is to hit it

Youngster
March 3, 2013, 01:27 PM
6 shots in of themselves may be sufficient, but the relatively slow reload of a typical revolver could cost you at at time when multiple attackers and high capacity firearms are common.

I'm loathe to give up my 686 and its "makes the hit for you" trigger and handling, but feeding it quickly under andrenaline dump stress is not something I'd want to do.

A New York reload is about the only way I'd want to go if I had reason to shoot a revolver empty, and that's not really weight/bulk efficient.

Snakeshift
March 3, 2013, 01:42 PM
6 shots in of themselves may be sufficient, but the relatively slow reload of a typical revolver could cost you at at time when multiple attackers and high capacity firearms are common.

I'm loathe to give up my 686 and its "makes the hit for you" trigger and handling, but feeding it quickly under andrenaline dump stress is not something I'd want to do.

A New York reload is about the only way I'd want to go if I had reason to shoot a revolver empty, and that's not really weight/bulk efficient.
I find this message to be a little misleading.

If you carry a revolver...PRACTICE reloading with a speedloader!

I carry both auto's and revolvers and the difference in reload time for me is maybe 1.5 seconds with a revolver.

I always hear how "slow" revolvers are to reload, It's all about muscle-memory. Just keep practicing.

tipoc
March 3, 2013, 02:28 PM
I'm rereading the original post...

My daily carry is a S&W Model 19 blued with a 4" barrel, loaded with 125 grain loads, with a Glock 26 as backup.


I used to never second guess that 6 shots was enough until I started reading other opinions on the internet

Now I'm not so sure. I love my revolver and have shot so many thousands of rounds through it that it feels like an extension of my hand, something that I've never felt with higher capacity semi autos. I am confident that I can make meaningful hits with my 19 in a self defense situation. But what about if there are multiple attackers? What if I miss? What if, what if, what if?That's why I started carrying a G26 as backup, as much as I dislike the plastic little thing. But what if I don't have enough time to draw my backup? The uncertainty is maddening.

Am I just letting this (and the internet) get to my head? Should I not be concerned with my 6 shots?

Seems to me there is a lot of worrying going on here. "The uncertainty is maddening." Is it really? Does thinking of this lead to worry and uncertainty? My suggestion is to not worry about it. Leave the piece at home. Concentrate instead on avoiding situations where where you're gonna face multiple attackers. Avoid it. You have done it so far, so just keep it up. Seems you're good at it.

Carrying a piece should be something you are relaxed with. Not something that causes stress. If you are stressed out you are gonna make mistakes. Mistakes with guns are usually not the kind that result in funny stories.

If you are tied in knots about this. Untie yourself, leave the piece at home or in the vehicle. You got a blade anyway right?

tipoc

joeschmoe
March 3, 2013, 03:01 PM
I don't think I will ever be attacked by more than 5 or 6 at once! But, where I live we all carry, I should get some help or offer some if we get attacked by a mob (I hope).

In Cali? :banghead:

FYI, it is common for gangs to only go out with large groups of "soldiers". Seeing groups of 20-40 gang members at a time is not uncommon. 4 - 10 vehicles. For "special" events they can have hundreds at once. The ability to coordinate them drops as the numbers increase, but still extraordinarily dangerous should you become their target. Think of them like coyotes. Brave in packs, cowards individually.

These packs are out there. Really in every state, mostly urban but not always. Also seen on highways between urban areas. If you haven't seen them, you probably just haven't noticed them.

Pistol on my hip, carbine in the car, work, house, etc. I try not to be too far from a carbine, or for too long.

seeker_two
March 3, 2013, 06:22 PM
FYI, it is common for gangs to only go out with large groups of "soldiers". Seeing groups of 20-40 gang members at a time is not uncommon. 4 - 10 vehicles. For "special" events they can have hundreds at once. The ability to coordinate them drops as the numbers increase, but still extraordinarily dangerous should you become their target. Think of them like coyotes. Brave in packs, cowards individually.


If this is the problem you're worried about, I can't think of any pistol that would solve it. Better start carrying grenades....

Droid noob
March 3, 2013, 06:25 PM
If this is the problem you're worried about, I can't think of any pistol that would solve it. Better start carrying grenades....

Nades aren't legal. Double stack mags are..... For now

joeschmoe
March 3, 2013, 06:26 PM
If this is the problem you're worried about, I can't think of any pistol that would solve it. Better start carrying grenades....
If you're not worried about it, then don't act surprised if it happens.

You edited this part out;



"Pistol on my hip, carbine in the car, work, house, etc. I try not to be too far from a carbine, or for too long."

ApacheCoTodd
March 3, 2013, 06:32 PM
The'd have you thinking that anything other than a high cap, semi auto (or revolver with a combat load of speed loaders) with calibers starting with a 4 and mounting lazers, flashlights, bobs and farkles will get you killed.

I don't see too many examples of running-quick draw-multi re-load gun fights occurring for the average citizenry.

For my part, I've been fortunate enough to have been armed 6 times in my life in occasions where other than critters have presented menace. So far a reload has not been necessary and the lack of encumbrance has been freeing and adds to the first "C" of CCW.

I certainly "get" the fellas loadin' for bear - it's not a bad thing to do, I just wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle about being underloaded by comparison.

joeschmoe
March 3, 2013, 06:51 PM
Watch out for the "gunfighter's" advice... I also have a first aid kit and fire extinguisher. Does that also make me Doctor Phil or Fire Marshal Bill?

The'd have you thinking that anything other than a high cap, semi auto (or revolver with a combat load of speed loaders) with calibers starting with a 4 and mounting lazers, flashlights, bobs and farkles will get you killed.

Who said that? My CCW is usually a 5 shot revolver. Flashlight is in the other pocket. Knife is 2" Dragonfly. Carbine near by though.

I don't see too many examples of running-quick draw-multi re-load gun fights occurring for the average citizenry.

When the bad guy has a long arm, your outgunned from the get go. I have been in the aftermath of several breakdowns in law & order; Hurricanes, earthquakes, riots, gang battles, etc. Things can get ugly, very quickly. Situations where a snub nosed was not enough gun against multiple bad guys with long guns.

Youngster
March 3, 2013, 07:50 PM
I find this message to be a little misleading.

If you carry a revolver...PRACTICE reloading with a speedloader!

I carry both auto's and revolvers and the difference in reload time for me is maybe 1.5 seconds with a revolver.

I always hear how "slow" revolvers are to reload, It's all about muscle-memory. Just keep practicing.

It'll never be as fast or fumble free though, especially under a big andrenal dump or if you're in some awkward position.

SharpsDressedMan
March 3, 2013, 08:15 PM
There was a time, and a place, when the "fight your way to your rifle (carbine)" was a reality for me, much like it might have been 150 year ago for a man on horseback in the Rockies. I was a cop in the NW of Colorado in the early 1980's. We most often worked alone, and gave backup to the county deputy, wildlife officer, and state patrolman that might be in need within 20 miles of town. I kept a Remington .308 scout type rifle in the cruiser, and often thought that, depending on the problem, I'd much rather have it in my hand, as distances could go to hundreds of yards in a hurry, if someone decided to take a shot at me or any of the other police in the area. Our town was about 2000-3000 population, and then there was wide open spaces, with the next nearby town 17 miles away. A 19th century cowboy might be lucky to make it to his rifle scabbard if someone decided to attack him on the trail after he stepped away from his horse or wagon. It really isn't that much different now, except we have have forgotten that a rifle can be handy to have nearby. If a fight is truly at hand, a rifle, or shotgun, might be WAY better than handgun. If possible, I'd like to have one nearby, even if I can't carry it or must keep it out of sight for social reasons.

Jhass
March 3, 2013, 08:26 PM
Six is enough until its not honestly.

Higher calibers require less shots, if ur accurate.

jad0110
March 3, 2013, 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seeker_two
If this is the problem you're worried about, I can't think of any pistol that would solve it. Better start carrying grenades....

If you're not worried about it, then don't act surprised if it happens.

"It" in this example being jumped by 20 to 40 gang members in multiple vehicles. Other than being aware of one's surroundings to avoid trouble and not associating yourself with people of questionable intent/morals, I'm not sure how you could ever survive something like that, or how you even begin to prepare for it. Unless you primary vehicle is an M4 Sherman, 99% of us would be finished if stuck in a situation like that.

oldbear
March 3, 2013, 08:59 PM
Am I just letting this (and the internet) get to my head? Should I not be concerned with my 6 shots?

Yes. No need to worry, 99 times out of 100 6 rounds will be more than enough, and the 100th time 60 rounds would not be enough ammo.

If you ever have to stop multiple unarmed attackers, by the time you shoot one or two the rest will looking for the fastest way to get FAR away from you. If you have to face multiple armed attackers, by the time you shoot one or two the others will have been able to kill you.

tomrkba
March 3, 2013, 09:42 PM
I subscribe to the "Aimed Fire/Point Shooting" school and still carry 46 rounds if I'm using 9x19mm or 25 rounds if I'm using 45 ACP. I go with 20-32 for revolvers.

The most important aspect of self-defense is to get training. Learn what you don't know and push the limits of your skill. Know various related skills such as how to manage encounters with law enforcement, awareness, pre-attack indicators, flashlight handling, and a wide variety of gun, knife and hand fighting skills. Make sure to take a "0-5 feet" course since the content is very, very different from the Gunsite 250 style courses. You are short changing yourself if you don't have all these skills. If you do your training, then the odds of success in and out of court increase.

joeschmoe
March 3, 2013, 09:42 PM
"It" in this example being jumped by 20 to 40 gang members in multiple vehicles. Other than being aware of one's surroundings to avoid trouble and not associating yourself with people of questionable intent/morals, I'm not sure how you could ever survive something like that, or how you even begin to prepare for it. Unless you primary vehicle is an M4 Sherman, 99% of us would be finished if stuck in a situation like that.
I guess you guys are unaware that there is a lot of drug and gang activity pretty much everywhere. This is how they travel to protect themselves and their contraband. Usually from other criminals and to make it harder for LEO to get them.
If you drive on highways in urban or even rural areas then you could encounter these people. All types and colors. Some are laughable wannabe's armed with 2 broken toys and less IQ than change in your pocket, all the way to seasoned gangsters with military backgrounds.
It can happen after a major natural or man made event when people with nothing to lose get desperate, in large numbers. Some with long arms (after Katrina, I saw people pointing shotguns at each other for the privilege of paying $40 for a bag of ice).
I already told you how you can prepare for it. Have a gun on you,a carbine near by and a plan not to be a victim. Much better off than just a handgun and not knowing things can get that bad. Which is the point of this thread.

Onward Allusion
March 3, 2013, 10:04 PM
LouisianaGunner12
Is 6 Shots Really Enough?
<SNIP>Am I just letting this (and the internet) get to my head? Should I not be concerned with my 6 shots?

It ain't "mall-ninja" to want more than 6.

There is a lot of truth to the 6-shots ain't enough school of thought. One doesn't necessarily have to do a spray and pray to go through more than 6 rounds and still be in need of more.

Sure ONE shot might be all you need to stop an attack with ONE assailant, however, what if there were 2 or 3 BG's? Never happen, eh? What about being loaded with adrenaline and your heart going about 120-140? What if you're moving? What will be your hit-rate? 10%? 20%? 30%?

Ok, got you thinking, eh? BTW, what's the one shot percentage for your cartridge?

Try some shooting on the move drills at a *stationary* target. How about a "moving" (multiple targets along a path to simulate) target? What's your hit-rate?

Of course, this is coming from a guy who's EDC is a P32 with a whopping total of eight 32ACP rounds. For HD however, my nightstand gun has 15+1 and a few 20 rounders.

Old Dog
March 3, 2013, 11:11 PM
Is 6 Shots Really Enough?Yes.

LouisianaGunner12
March 3, 2013, 11:50 PM
Seems to me there is a lot of worrying going on here. "The uncertainty is maddening." Is it really? Does thinking of this lead to worry and uncertainty? My suggestion is to not worry about it. Leave the piece at home. Concentrate instead on avoiding situations where where you're gonna face multiple attackers. Avoid it. You have done it so far, so just keep it up. Seems you're good at it.

Carrying a piece should be something you are relaxed with. Not something that causes stress. If you are stressed out you are gonna make mistakes. Mistakes with guns are usually not the kind that result in funny stories.

If you are tied in knots about this. Untie yourself, leave the piece at home or in the vehicle. You got a blade anyway right?

tipoc


I didn't mean to sound like this was literally causing me anxiety or driving me mad. That was poor wording on my part. When I carry my 19 I don't feel stress or anxiety, what I meant was that I frequently question (particularly while reading gun related material) if I'd be better off with a higher capacity sidearm.

Droid noob
March 4, 2013, 07:29 AM
I didn't mean to sound like this was literally causing me anxiety or driving me mad. That was poor wording on my part. When I carry my 19 I don't feel stress or anxiety, what I meant was that I frequently question (particularly while reading gun related material) if I'd be better off with a higher capacity sidearm.

What are the pros and cons to carrying your 19 vs a higher capacity firearm?
Weight, printing, reload time, capacity? Write it out or just think about it. Then decide if it's worth it to you.

My school of thought changes with the environment around us. We get loads of info from the news, books, forums that shape our opinions or beliefs in what we carry. Whatever you go with, train for that particular setup and be happy. Good luck!

tipoc
March 4, 2013, 09:23 AM
I didn't mean to sound like this was literally causing me anxiety or driving me mad. That was poor wording on my part. When I carry my 19 I don't feel stress or anxiety, what I meant was that I frequently question (particularly while reading gun related material) if I'd be better off with a higher capacity sidearm.

That's a question for you to consider as you are. As you also note when you read advice on the internet or in the gun press that advice is often to carry more guns and ammo.

Ask yourself this, if you were reading a Golf magazine or forum or a stereo magazine or forum would such a source advise buying new or more golf clubs to up your game? Or newer and better sound equipment? The answer is likely yes. So don't be surprised when you hear similiar on a gun forum.

I think making a clear headed assessment of your actual threat level is called for. If you sell weed or oxy for a living and your competitors are out to kill you then it's a pretty high threat level. If you have regular loud shouting arguments with your neighbors, then call the cops on them and snitch 'em out, get in a lot of barfights, etc. your threat level may be pretty high. If you believe the movie "End of Watch" was a documentary on your life, then you may need to carry more guns.

Most of us though aren't Jason Bourne and never will be.

If your not sure what your daily threat level really is discuss it with neighbors, co-workers, relations, etc. Since they do about what you do and live like you, what do they think of the threat level they live with. Consider it and decide what to do.

I'm reminded of a story Massad Ayoob told once of going to a seminar of gun writers and firearms instructors where 25 or so well known folks gathered. At the beginning of the meet someone asked what the attendees were carrying. Only one was carrying a full sized gun. The rest either J frame S&Ws or small semis in .380. None were carrying multiple guns. This was in a major urban center. None of them felt the need.

tipoc

jmorris
March 4, 2013, 09:32 AM
6 shots is plenty unless you find yourself needing 7. However 250 rounds is also plenty unless you need 251...

easyg
March 4, 2013, 11:59 AM
FYI, it is common for gangs to only go out with large groups of "soldiers". Seeing groups of 20-40 gang members at a time is not uncommon. 4 - 10 vehicles. For "special" events they can have hundreds at once. The ability to coordinate them drops as the numbers increase, but still extraordinarily dangerous should you become their target. Think of them like coyotes. Brave in packs, cowards individually.

These packs are out there. Really in every state, mostly urban but not always. Also seen on highways between urban areas. If you haven't seen them, you probably just haven't noticed them.

Pistol on my hip, carbine in the car, work, house, etc. I try not to be too far from a carbine, or for too long.
Yeah, gangs do exist.
But carrying a carbine isn't going to save you if they decide to target you.
There's just no way one armed man is going to survive a determined attack by 20-40 armed gang members, carbine or no carbine.

Besides, gang members aren't as dumb as some folks think.
They know the "rules of engagement" as well as anyone, and better than some.

sixgunner455
March 4, 2013, 12:12 PM
Yeah, gangs do exist.
But carrying a carbine isn't going to save you if they decide to target you.

Can't hurt. Beats doing nothing.

KenW.
March 4, 2013, 12:16 PM
Here in Utah I feel just fine going to the 7/11 a half mile from home carrying a two-shot derringer or a 5-shot J-Frame. In Detroit? Maybe a 16-round mag isn't enough.

Depends on the conditions of your surroundings.

Certaindeaf
March 4, 2013, 12:17 PM
Is that a six shot .22lr carbine? lolz. Wait'll I whip this out, why don't ya!

Snakeshift
March 4, 2013, 01:12 PM
It'll never be as fast or fumble free though, especially under a big andrenal dump or if you're in some awkward position.
I've seen PLENTY of people fumble and drop mags for Semi-Auto's while trying to reload quickly. Reloading under stress is HARD no matter what platform you are using.

It all comes down to training and muscle-memory.

tomrkba
March 4, 2013, 01:33 PM
BTW, what's the one shot percentage for your cartridge?


The science behind those figures has been shown to be faulty. I completely discount those numbers when choosing caliber. I stay with the common ones from 38 Special through 44 Magnum. I do have something in 380 Auto, but I do not carry it as a primary gun.

Youngster
March 4, 2013, 02:32 PM
I've seen PLENTY of people fumble and drop mags for Semi-Auto's while trying to reload quickly. Reloading under stress is HARD no matter what platform you are using.

It all comes down to training and muscle-memory.

It's that much more likely to happen with a revolver though, and harder to do when your eyes need to be elsewhere. It's not for nothing that even folks like Jim Cirillo prefered the NY reload.

marcclarke
March 4, 2013, 03:45 PM
No, six shots is not enough in today's world of multiple assailant attacks. :(

Warp
March 4, 2013, 03:49 PM
Is 6 shots enough?

Probably.

tuj
March 4, 2013, 04:17 PM
It's not for nothing that even folks like Jim Cirillo prefered the NY reload.

Also worth noting that according to Cirillo's book, he only saw two one-shot stops ever, one was with a 30-carbine and the other a 12ga IIRC.

jad0110
March 4, 2013, 04:36 PM
Quote:
Yeah, gangs do exist.
But carrying a carbine isn't going to save you if they decide to target you.

Can't hurt. Beats doing nothing.

While I agree it can't hurt, as long as you don't become fixated on getting to your vehicle and that fixation gets you killed, I do agree with easyg. Also, in my state a CCW is only good for carrying handguns, not long guns, and I think that even includes your vehicle (long guns must be stored unloaded, but now that I think of it I need to double check that).

According to friends and coworkers that have moved to my location from places like Chicago, LA, Oakland, Baltimore, etc ... the gangs in my area typically fall more into the wannabee spectrum.

mljdeckard
March 4, 2013, 04:38 PM
It is a bad idea to say any number of shots is enough, especially from a handgun. There are no guarantees. What I would PREFER to carry for self-defense would be a platoon of Marine infantry. If that isn't available, a crew-served machine gun. Then a battle rifle. Then an assault rifle. Then a civilian-legal defensive rifle. If none of these things are available or practical, I guess I'll settle for a handgun. six may or may not be enough. 17 plus a reload in a G-17 may or may not be enough.

One well-placed shot is enough. Whether or not the real world lets that shot be your first is another question entirely. For the vast majority of armed encounters, yes, six will probably be enough. But I'm still carrying at least one reload for my 1911. If I carried a revolver regularly, I would use either speedloaders or moon clips, and carry at least one extra.

Godsgunman
March 4, 2013, 05:07 PM
6 "should" be enough but definitely NOT if the gubment is trying to say so. Plus every situation is not the same, may need just 2, may need 10, who knows. Seems to me if most people still only needed 6 the police wouldn't be using 17 round Glocks now would they.

22-rimfire
March 4, 2013, 05:52 PM
Just remember, if you encounter a sitution where your life is in danger and 6-shots aren't enough, I hope you have the sense to get the heck out of dodge really fast in the confusion.

JRH6856
March 4, 2013, 05:54 PM
Know the threat level, yes, but also know yourself. What level of threat are you capable of dealing with? If you are over 65, overweight and out of shape, you may not be able to handle an unarmed altercation with an in-shape 20yo. in this case, having a 5 shot revolver or a 2 shot derringer may be an equalizer and also save your bacon if the assailant is armed, but faced with multiple armed attackers, especially determined ones, your physical limitations may render more than 5 rounds useless because you may never get to use them.

OTOH, if you are that in-shape 20yo, practice and compete regularly, and have the proper mindset, you may be able to handle multiple attackers just fine (or at least until you can get to your carbine), IWC, multiple mags and a BUG might be more useful.

A man's got to know his limitations.

Warp
March 4, 2013, 07:07 PM
Just remember, if you encounter a sitution where your life is in danger and 6-shots aren't enough, I hope you have the sense to get the heck out of dodge really fast in the confusion.

I hope that you have the sense to realize that if you can get the heck out of dodge really fast, safely, you do it, no matter how many shots in how effective of a firearm you may have available.

When I talk about self defense in threads like this I operate under the preposition that everybody knows avoidance is always preferred, whenever possible.

So please, make sure you do everything you possibly can to avoid having shoot somebody. 'get the heck out of dodge really fast', if you can...right from the get-go.

steve s
March 4, 2013, 07:11 PM
5 rounds may not be enough 30 rounds may not be enough????? How many people have we shot in self defense in the last 8 months? IMO more is better but I carry 5 shot J frame and 1 speed strip.

Kiln
March 4, 2013, 08:21 PM
I have several revolvers and enjoy them a lot. The revolver has a few benefits over an automatic and vice versa.

The only problem with revolvers is that there are now so many guns available that are similar in size to a .38sp revolver that have more than double the capacity.

I just can't justify carrying a revolver with six shots when I own a compact semi auto with 13 shots. Honestly you're unlikely to ever need to fire a single shot from a carry gun but you never know. All I know is that if I were in a situation where I was facing a mass shooter or multiple assailants, I want more than six shots.

Warp
March 4, 2013, 08:26 PM
I have several revolvers and enjoy them a lot. The revolver has a few benefits over an automatic and vice versa.

The only problem with revolvers is that there are now so many guns available that are similar in size to a .38sp revolver that have more than double the capacity.

I just can't justify carrying a revolver with six shots when I own a compact semi auto with 13 shots. Honestly you're unlikely to ever need to fire a single shot from a carry gun but you never know. All I know is that if I were in a situation where I was facing a mass shooter or multiple assailants, I want more than six shots.

Except there isn't really a 13 round semi auto that will go/fit everywhere a snub nose .38 will.

Kiln
March 4, 2013, 08:33 PM
Except there isn't really a 13 round semi auto that will go/fit everywhere a snub nose .38 will.
Alright how about ten rounds from the Kel Tec P11? It is smaller, lighter, and slimmer than a .38sp snub nose.

barnbwt
March 4, 2013, 09:13 PM
Science has shown that, ideally, 8 rounds are two more than 6 rounds.

TCB

Warp
March 4, 2013, 10:22 PM
Alright how about ten rounds from the Kel Tec P11? It is smaller, lighter, and slimmer than a .38sp snub nose.

What we get into now is my personal opinion, and experience, that Kel Tec's are cheap and I will not voluntarily trust my life to one. So, personally, I say no to a P11 over a 642, no questions asked.

But that's just me.

Kiln
March 5, 2013, 12:10 AM
What we get into now is my personal opinion, and experience, that Kel Tec's are cheap and I will not voluntarily trust my life to one. So, personally, I say no to a P11 over a 642, no questions asked.

But that's just me.
My P40 works great. I'd trust it any day. I've also seen quality revolvers locked up so there is no guaranteed gun out there whether revolver or semi.

22-rimfire
March 5, 2013, 12:14 AM
Shooting is always the last resort. But if you begin shooting and you are still standing after 6-rounds, there will be some confusion and you need to bug out quick. A reload would be nice, but I seldom carry a reload.

smle41
March 5, 2013, 01:43 AM
This note is in two parts, and both to affirm my thought that 6 rounds is enough.
First, while noting the likelihood of facing several attackers, we must let, at least, these two considerations enter our calculations. "A" is that if they are determined, no capacity can be brought to bear that would matter. In two local instances, a lone citizen was attacked by a group of 10 or more gang members. The citizen was unable to fire more than two rounds into no more than one attacker before the mob was on them and beat them severely. At a range competition where I was derided by a Glock enthusiast, we practiced drawing and firing into rapidly approaching paper, I was able to fire one round to score one hit before the paper was "on me" ( the Glock shooter in question was able to fire twice, neither round hit "the black". A "bum rush" is concerning because of the speed the bums can rush. "B" is more likely, and that is that the mob is less determined to attack than they are to not get shot. Contrary to the movies, there is little honor or devotion among thieves. In my limited experiences, the group did not analyze the capacity of my handgun, they fled at the sight or even perception of it. Let's face it, if they were industrious, they'd have jobs and be flipping burgers with the rest of us rather than seeking "easy money", which explains the preponderance of instances where the mere display of resistance deters.
Perhaps the most underrated attraction to a revolver may be its resistance to a user-induced malfunction under duress. Time and again , when one reads, converses, learns of, witnesses, autoloading pistol "jams", it is because the weapon was unintentionally made to not work by circumstances involving the user running, operatng one-handed, off-handed, taken a face full of mace, having had the wind punched from them, the list is disquietingly long where controlling an autoloading in it's operating cycle can be more difficult than standing erect, in good position, facing a target on a static range. Even so, with weapon malfunctions, in the majority of cases, the enemy did not stop to analyze or deduce, the attackers in the "jam" situations, numbering from 2 or 4 or more, did not stop to "exchange" fire, they got out as fast as they could to seek easier prey elsewhere, or remembered they were late for their group meeting with the college admissions office.
I think that when we consider these factors, in researching and considering threat and course of action responses, "just 6" may not be a cause for such worry.
Heck, I for one am glad you are carrying and so adding to the "good guy" rolls. :)
Thank you.

shafter
March 5, 2013, 06:56 AM
If you want to carry something with more capacity then do it. I don't think anyone here is going to try to talk you out of your 19 though.

22-rimfire
March 5, 2013, 12:09 PM
NY state believes "7" is enough.

From a rights standpoint, I don't think 6 (or 7) is enough, nor do I think 30 is enough. From a practical perspective, I think 6 is enough for most situations. Gang members aren't trying to win the medal of honor. The scenario that I believe a reload may be critical is in a pursuit situation where the bad guys are after the intended victim; the victim is on the move; and the gang is chasing. I have no idea how often this happens. But I think Smle41 has it about right and the gang will seek an easier target who will not be defending themselves.

farm23
March 5, 2013, 12:56 PM
For those who carry 9's high cap mag are available but I carry big hole weapons and double stack mag do not fit my hand. I carry 44/45 revolvers or 45 pistols [1911 style]. I have never needed more than 3 [now days my main concern is rapid animals, & coyote] but I have also never served in big city high crime areas.

I expect most of us carry to protect self and family and the most important factor is to practice - practice - practice.

SharpsDressedMan
March 5, 2013, 01:23 PM
We need to re-establish that a citizen IS the government. Any argument made to arm the police, in our behalf (and in ADDITION to an armed people), should be the same argument for the armed citizen. If the police need more than six, the necessity of an armed citizen needing more than six might even be greater, as they do not have radioed backup readily avaiable in most shooting circuimstances.

The Lone Haranguer
March 5, 2013, 01:34 PM
Those six shots are most likely enough, but I wouldn't want any less than that, either.

Certaindeaf
March 5, 2013, 03:41 PM
OP,
For decades, most six-shot "shooters" carried two reloads and called it a day. That's eighteen rounds total.
Are you saying "six-shot" or "six shots". If I only had six shots of X, I'd sure choose a smooth K or L frame six shot. and even then

LouisianaGunner12
March 5, 2013, 04:07 PM
Yes. I'm starting to think that 6 shots of .357 is plenty for the vast majority of likely (and unlikely) scenarios...

...and in the few unlikely scenarios where 6 shots aren't enough, the little Glock 26 backup in my ankle holster should be plenty. If I don't have enough time to draw my Glock 26 backup after my revolver's empty, I was probably screwed anyway.

Certaindeaf
March 5, 2013, 04:46 PM
I think it's been said, though I have no references but memory.. if you're able to trade your life with another on the battlefield (and how I read battlefield is you are essentially both prepared to trade), you've done good/average.

SharpsDressedMan
March 5, 2013, 06:18 PM
I'm not trading my life with a hostile adversary in an armed encounter. My life is worth more than his because I am a good guy.

ApacheCoTodd
March 5, 2013, 08:43 PM
I think it's been said, though I have no references but memory.. if you're able to trade your life with another on the battlefield (and how I read battlefield is you are essentially both prepared to trade), you've done good/average.
I dunno - where I come from we call that a losing draw.

Sounds wonderfully romantic in a Hemingway-esque sorta way but on a battlefield it's a wash and in a criminal environment it's even worse.

Black Knight
March 5, 2013, 08:56 PM
What I like about a six shot revolver is that it makes you concentrate on making your shots counts. You can't afford to waste even one round. With a semi-auto with 15 rounds some feel they have enough ammo that the amount is all they need. Quantity does not always equal quality.

BRE346
March 5, 2013, 09:12 PM
I thought 25 rounds would be enough until I got a compact with bigger mags.
Yes, a revolver had better be enough to get you out of range or barricaded.
It's those gangstas that worry me.

Bill4282
March 5, 2013, 09:22 PM
Hear of a New York reload? If 12 good enough for NYPD, good for me. If the bad guy is a good shot, you'll probably not even need a backup.

Warp
March 5, 2013, 09:36 PM
Hear of a New York reload? If 12 good enough for NYPD, good for me. If the bad guy is a good shot, you'll probably not even need a backup.

Don't NYPD carry Glocks with well over 12 rounds, and at least two spare mags for WAY more than 12 rounds total?

AFDavis11
March 5, 2013, 09:37 PM
You will fight with whatever you bring to the table. Although you might worry about capacity now, you'll only replace it with worry about reliability, later.

Try to focus more on your willingness to fight.

Carry any gun you want. Fight with the gun, a reload, a knife, your fists, your teeth.

If you really want something important to think about, focus on the speed you'll probably need to draw and fire the first two rounds in.

I think worrying about the sixth round might be overly optimistic, based on the speed of the average gun fight.

JRH6856
March 5, 2013, 09:54 PM
based on the speed of the average gun fight.

3 shots in 3 seconds at 3 feet.

David E
March 5, 2013, 10:11 PM
3 shots in 3 seconds at 3 feet.

Source?

Certaindeaf
March 5, 2013, 10:17 PM
I'm not trading my life with a hostile adversary in an armed encounter. My life is worth more than his because I am a good guy.
I hear you and they'll all say/think that but the truth is true. You're either going to trade or not, hence historical numbers. You almost don't have a choice if you go on the field.

asia331
March 5, 2013, 10:44 PM
Someone once said words to the effect that if you need more than 6-7 rounds you don't need more ammo...you need more friends

KC&97TA
March 5, 2013, 11:06 PM
This is like the 9mm vs 40 vs 45 vs...

I feel adequate with 6 in a Colt D or S&W 10, snub noses are my choice the majority of days. No reload, just 6 rounds of 158gr +P.

I admit, I vary my carry with sub compact high capacity tuperware and various 1911's... more so on Sat / Sun than durring the week.

SharpsDressedMan
March 5, 2013, 11:57 PM
If you have already decided you are going to come up even in a gunfight, it's better that you decline to participate. Stay home. To allow any thoughts other than victory is to sabotage your own mindset. Don't do it.

smle41
March 6, 2013, 12:02 AM
What Asia331 said has much truth in it.. individuals are much more easily picked off than pairs or groups.
:)

ZVP
March 6, 2013, 01:30 AM
A handgun is for defense, if 4 are not enough then hope that your records are in order!
Seriously, the odds of multiple attackers are low and you had be well practiced enough to make all 5 count!Most people don't carry a gun so you are already ahead in the fight.
I trust my little Chief's Special.
ZVP

Bill4282
March 6, 2013, 02:18 AM
A New York reload was two .38s, one in each back pocket.

Tcruse
March 6, 2013, 08:48 AM
Someone once said words to the effect that if you need more than 6-7 rounds you don't need more ammo...you need more friends
Probably good advice. For the government to tell me that 6,7,10 or 15 is enough is an absolute NO. The choice should of what I depend on is mine and a "right" under the constitution, so it is not dependent on what someone else thinks is good for me.
The how many is enough many times comes down to "revolver" or "semi-automatic". I know that a revolver can be as accurate and as powerfull (maybe more so) than an automatice, however I have observed that the people that go to my range with revolvers (a minority of shooters) do not seem to hit as well. One of the things that my CCW instructor said in gun and ammo selection was to see what the local police carried and use that as a starting point. Mainly so that you had a good answer as to why you carried that "evil black Glock" with hollow point ammo. I see almost no LEO using revolvers these days, that should tell us something about what works best. If you look at the math, probably an empty gun is enough most of the time.

David E
March 6, 2013, 09:21 AM
!
Seriously, the odds of multiple attackers are low

Over 40% of the time, there are multiple attackers. You're calling 40% low odds?

you had be well practiced enough to make all 5 count!

Yup!

I trust my little Chief's Special.

Curious, do you carry a reload for it?

Godsgunman
March 6, 2013, 10:42 AM
"3 shots in 3 seconds at 3 feet"
That'll most likely get you injured if not killed. Only takes me 1 second to cover 3 feet of distance.

JRH6856
March 6, 2013, 10:58 AM
3 shots in 3 seconds at 3 feet.
Source?

Supposedly from FBI statistics.

JRH6856
March 6, 2013, 11:01 AM
"3 shots in 3 seconds at 3 feet"
That'll most likely get you injured if not killed. Only takes me 1 second to cover 3 feet of distance.

That assumes the fight starts with you at 3 feet rather than ends with you at 3 feet. ;)

Godsgunman
March 6, 2013, 11:05 AM
Also letting the threat within 3' (basically arms reach) in the first place generally shows a huge lack of situational awareness and you aren't drawing your gun in time before you are sucker punched from that distance.

BossHogg
March 6, 2013, 11:11 AM
I have my 5 shot J-frame in my pocket most of the time, if I feel under gunned I move up to my hi-cap 6+1 Glock 36 45acp.

JRH6856
March 6, 2013, 11:14 AM
Also letting the threat within 3' (basically arms reach) in the first place generally shows a huge lack of situational awareness and you aren't drawing your gun in time before you are sucker punched from that distance.
Agreed. I wasn't describing the ideal situation, just what the FBI seemed to find was the most common. 3 feet is too close. 3 yards is too close. 7 yards (21') is probably the minimum threat distance for a reasonably reliable defense. But in some situations, it might be impossible to identify a threat soon enough.

Youngster
March 6, 2013, 11:26 AM
A New York reload was two .38s, one in each back pocket.

Really it was the whole concept of "reloading" by presenting another loaded handgun, in Cirillo's case he carried two 4 inch S&W Model 10s in duty holsters, plus a Colt Cobra snub and a PPK.

His frequent partner Bill Allard OTOH carried a 1911, a Model 10 and possible others.

Anyway, thumbing through his "Tales of the Stakeout Squad" again, his first gunfight with the squad included an instance where he'd shot a perp 3 times in the head but it was found that the first two had glanced off, suggesting that even with excellent markmanship, only 6 shots may be cutting it a little close in some situations.

Warp
March 6, 2013, 12:25 PM
I think the "rule of 3's average" is 3 rounds, 3 seconds, 3 yards...not feet.

But the point is the same. On average a defensive firearm use by a private citizen, esp a handgun in 'public', is a very quick, close range affair with not many shots fired.

But there certainly are outliers, and there certainly are legitimate reasons to want more than 6 rounds.

It is up to each individual to decide on their own personal course of actions, and decide for themselves what they are comfortable with and confident in.

10 Spot Terminator
March 6, 2013, 01:03 PM
6 shots are plenty unless there are 7 total idiots .

If you have a revolver get your self a couple of speed loaders and practice with them,,,, A LOT ! You can do this with dummy rounds for safety.

If you watch the Pistolero champions who use revolvers in combat courses you will see how amazingly fast they have become at reloading. You can too .

If you have to drop a cylinder of empties during a gunfight dont just let them hit the ground and signal you are empty. The trick is to surprise the bad guys when they move out of cover THINKING you are empty. Dont take time to put empty loaders and brass in your pocket. Pick them up later.

To maximize the potential of those 5, 6, or 7 shots in a revolver get a set of Crimson Trace laser grips. These allow you to fire from cover in ways you never before thought possible without the risk of exsposing too much of yourself. Let THEM become a target.

There is NO 2ND PLACE in a gunfight .

10 Spot

788Ham
March 6, 2013, 01:04 PM
Worrying about which to "carry"? Learning to shoot the one you're carrying is the important thing, being able to hit what the barrel points at is the main thing. Carrying is the easy part, make hitting what you're shooting at the next easiest thing !

tomrkba
March 6, 2013, 01:24 PM
The reason point shooting is so important is that it's fast! If you're inside seven yards, speed is essential, especially if you're behind on initiative. You can point shoot and score solid torso hits.

Your defenses may include body armor, but likely all you'll have is movement with the possibility of cover or concealment. If the bad guy is close to you, then movement becomes very important for avoiding incoming attacks. Keep in mind that the gun may not be the correct answer to the current situation; you may need to use your fists to create enough time and/or distance to draw a weapon.

It's very important to recognize that bad guys get a say in the outcome. They'll move and shoot. You should practice with Airsoft by shooting at moving targets while moving in various directions. Keep each practice iteration short with just a few shots and only load as many pellets as your gun holds. Lateral movement against the bad guy's gun side elbow provides you with maximum advantage. Practice shooting using primary and secondary hands moving in any direction. It'll take awhile to get accurate like this, but it's very possible.

Is six shots enough? Six rounds from either a revolver or semi-automatic pistol goes very, very quickly. You will be surprised given how many missed shots you'll make in the time of the shot string. This is why Bill Jordan liked "stand and deliver" (see No Second Place Winner): it was easier to hit. It worked for him, but I think it's better to practice a wider variety of skills.

Extra ammunition is essential in my mind, if only to reload the gun while waiting for the police. You never know if the bad guy's friends are going to arrive and you may need to use the gun again. Also, the gun may suffer from some sort of feed malfunction, bad magazine, etc. Reloading is a good way to get the gun back into action quickly.

Big Dog Dad
March 6, 2013, 01:35 PM
If you understand the basic concept of: Eyeball, rear sight, front sight, perp all in line, you will have no problem. If you want to look "cool" with the sights twisted towards the ground in "gansta" style, then spray and pray, followed by DIE. At the sight of a good 5-shot S&W, most (99.9%) of these low-lifes will turn and run. If not, two to center mass followed by one to the head and you've still got two shots left. Old-fart wisdom!

-=BDD=-

Mp7
March 6, 2013, 01:36 PM
a MP40 and a couple of stick-handgrenades, if u wanna play safe.

A FG42 in a back-scabbard works too.

tomrkba
March 6, 2013, 01:44 PM
If you understand the basic concept of: Eyeball, rear sight, front sight, perp all in line, you will have no problem. If you want to look "cool" with the sights twisted towards the ground in "gansta" style, then spray and pray, followed by DIE.

Point shooting has nothing to do with that silly sideways shooting technique shown in the movies. If one takes it seriously and figures it out, it works well. The trick is to apply it only in the correct situation. Point shooting is essential for scoring hits while moving quickly (the silly "crab walk" or "crab sidestep" is too slow). My general rule of thumb is to hold the gun higher as the distance increases. If certainty is in doubt, use the sights. For me, that means past 12-15 yards (depending upon the gun), I'll be using aimed fire only. Practice point shooting while moving enough to know when you can and cannot make a shot with certainty. This may mean you don't take a shot until the bad guy stops moving; you'll have to make the call based upon your confidence, what he's doing, cover/concealment, and who is in the background.

At the sight of a good 5-shot S&W, most (99.9%) of these low-lifes will turn and run.

The operative word here is "most". What if the criminal moving up on you does not see the gun? Gang members are returning from overseas with combat experience (and some have high end special operations experience) and they're training their buddies. Don't count upon anything. There was an essay about training to fight "Todd" which described training to fight a very strong trained man. It's worst case; we all hope for something more in our favor.

Warp
March 6, 2013, 01:48 PM
If you have to drop a cylinder of empties during a gunfight dont just let them hit the ground and signal you are empty. The trick is to surprise the bad guys when they move out of cover THINKING you are empty.

notsureifserious

tomrkba
March 6, 2013, 01:59 PM
Originally Posted by 10 Spot Terminator
If you have to drop a cylinder of empties during a gunfight dont just let them hit the ground and signal you are empty. The trick is to surprise the bad guys when they move out of cover THINKING you are empty.

notsureifserious


He likely is, despite it being about as "good" as Vice President Joe Biden's advice to "shoot through the door".

David E
March 6, 2013, 06:55 PM
If you have to drop a cylinder of empties during a gunfight dont just let them hit the ground and signal you are empty. The trick is to surprise the bad guys when they move out of cover THINKING you are empty.

Hey, I saw that movie, too. James Coburn thought Charleton Heston was empty, but it was just a clever ploy!

lowercase
March 6, 2013, 07:31 PM
notsureifserious

That reply cracked me up. :D

Texshooter
March 6, 2013, 10:16 PM
Hard for me to say.

6 of .357 vs 16 9mm? Or 8 .45?

Thankfully I have never had to find out and will to the best of my ability avoid having to find out.

Not talking about stats here, but would love to see some actual confrontation reports, certified, as to how many shots were fired, and needed, to end a good guys run in with danger.

Texshooter
March 6, 2013, 10:20 PM
In response to Black Knight post #106, I can see that point.

Just observe people at a firing range. How many of the wheelie shooters are actually practicing vs. the high cap shooters just, well, shooting at will with what seems like no plan of practice.

Warp
March 6, 2013, 11:39 PM
In response to Black Knight post #106, I can see that point.

Just observe people at a firing range. How many of the wheelie shooters are actually practicing vs. the high cap shooters just, well, shooting at will with what seems like no plan of practice.

Seems to be about the same to me.

tomrkba
March 7, 2013, 06:56 AM
I do not see that at all. What I see is a higher proportion of novice shooters unable to figure out what they're doing wrong. I see "tea cupping", fingers on the front of trigger guards, recoil anticipation, and so forth. Lack of trigger control is the most common mistake and is usually combined with one or two others. Semi-autos are far more popular and there will be a correspondingly larger group of novices. They could all use some double action revolver trigger time to help clean up their trigger control. This is the primary purpose of my revolvers, by the way.

David E
March 7, 2013, 07:37 AM
If you want to stretch a box of 50, shoot them in a revolver.

Warp
March 7, 2013, 10:25 AM
If you want to stretch a box of 50, shoot them in a revolver.

Yes, the generally-slower reloads will tend to slow you down. Some semi autos now come with enough magazines to hold the entire 50 round box all at once. If you load all of them up before you start shooting, you can finish before you really realize what just happened

Certaindeaf
March 7, 2013, 02:41 PM
If you want to stretch a box of 50, shoot them in a revolver.
I remember like a hundred years ago a semi-auto .22 handgun, model 41? it doesn't matter, was pitted against an H&R top break 999 revolver (not that the top-break was the deal breaker, it was just pitted against the auto) and the 999 won every time getting through 50 faster and of course more.

JRH6856
March 7, 2013, 05:34 PM
I remember like a hundred years ago a semi-auto .22 handgun, model 41? it doesn't matter, was pitted against an H&R top break 999 revolver (not that the top-break was the deal breaker, it was just pitted against the auto) and the 999 won every time getting through 50 faster and of course more.
I'm guessing the semi had no spare mags so the one mag had to be reloaded each time. :uhoh:

smle41
March 7, 2013, 07:13 PM
On the subject that Tex and Warp mention, I have to confirm from my personal experience and observations that revolver shooters do often seem to exhibit more care. And I am firmly convinced that BDD apprehends the most likely scenario that we might face.
I cannot recall all the details, I assume someone more savvy than I can find the original post/thread, regarding "street thugs and you", and confirming the old saw, that the single most important rule of the (potential) gun fight is to have a gun. And, the willingness and mentality to use it.
Please do not misunderstand that I am against a person wishing to use what they wish....
In answer to the question posed about actual confrontations, against single or numerous ne'er-do-wells, it seems that, by far, the actual round usage is 0 (with any number from 2 to a dozen attackers), though I can think of three instances where the ammunition expenditure was 1 (even against multiple criminals, once the shooting started, they were trying to outrun the bullet in their haste to leave) and once when it was 8 ( all fired into one attacker at point blank range while the other gang members fled, their resolve to mug being in inverse ratio to the victim's willingness to fight back).
I am not by any means ruling out the possibility of facing numerous determined foes, but one must first realize that the majority of criminals are not determined people, and that if a person is facing such an uncommon threat, one must the fact that one's prospects may be grim indeed, such that no pistol made can substantively affect in and of itself. Fortunately, such foes, who really are willing to die for your wallet, are statistically non-existent as opposed to those who run away to rape another day.
Have a gun, know how to use it, be willing and prepared to use it.

Warp
March 7, 2013, 07:49 PM
On the subject that Tex and Warp mention, I have to confirm from my personal experience and observations that revolver shooters do often seem to exhibit more care. And I am firmly convinced that BDD apprehends the most likely scenario that we might face.
I cannot recall all the details, I assume someone more savvy than I can find the original post/thread, regarding "street thugs and you", and confirming the old saw, that the single most important rule of the (potential) gun fight is to have a gun. And, the willingness and mentality to use it.
Please do not misunderstand that I am against a person wishing to use what they wish....
In answer to the question posed about actual confrontations, against single or numerous ne'er-do-wells, it seems that, by far, the actual round usage is 0 (with any number from 2 to a dozen attackers), though I can think of three instances where the ammunition expenditure was 1 (even against multiple criminals, once the shooting started, they were trying to outrun the bullet in their haste to leave) and once when it was 8 ( all fired into one attacker at point blank range while the other gang members fled, their resolve to mug being in inverse ratio to the victim's willingness to fight back).
I am not by any means ruling out the possibility of facing numerous determined foes, but one must first realize that the majority of criminals are not determined people, and that if a person is facing such an uncommon threat, one must the fact that one's prospects may be grim indeed, such that no pistol made can substantively affect in and of itself. Fortunately, such foes, who really are willing to die for your wallet, are statistically non-existent as opposed to those who run away to rape another day.
Have a gun, know how to use it, be willing and prepared to use it.


That's a good post, but I don't personally care for the mentality/thought process behind the part in bold.

Don't assume that your wallet/money/whatever material possessions are all they are after, and all they want. That assumption could get your executed, or worse.

smle41
March 7, 2013, 08:12 PM
Oh, yes, and concur with AFDavis above, as well...
One ought not to assume that all the rodent(s) want is the TV, and I did not mean to imply that one ought to assume such, I apologize for any mis-expression . What I mean to express is that those who are willing to die are outnumbered by those who are unwilling to die. Almost all, conversely, are willing to harm and or murder in the "normal course of business". They are, largely, looking for a victim, not a fight...
And thank you for the compliment :)

Warp
March 7, 2013, 08:35 PM
Oh, yes, and concur with AFDavis above, as well...
One ought not to assume that all the rodent(s) want is the TV, and I did not mean to imply that one ought to assume such, I apologize for any mis-expression . What I mean to express is that those who are willing to die are outnumbered by those who are unwilling to die. Almost all, conversely, are willing to harm and or murder in the "normal course of business". They are, largely, looking for a victim, not a fight...
And thank you for the compliment :)

Completely agreed.

wheelyfun66
March 8, 2013, 05:48 AM
Is six shots really enough?

I think so:
http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t497/spec4towle/021-1.jpg

Checkman
March 8, 2013, 09:38 AM
Yes. If you don't think it is carry something that carries more bullets. If you think six shots is overkill then carry a five shot S&W J frame. I don't get wrapped around the axle about all the uber tactical stuff anymore. Plenty of folks with $2,500 45 autos have lost and died and there are others who are still standing at the end and they were using a 32 El Cheapo. I don't recommend carrying a 32 caliber El Cheapo, but you understand what I mean. Hopefully.

ActionJax
March 8, 2013, 12:02 PM
Yup, I carry a "gasp" SEVEN shot .380, but I know how to use it!

(At least I hope I will be able to.... :) )

The idea of carrying TWO guns around all day ..... wow, you guys must live in a different neighborhood than I do.

golden
March 8, 2013, 03:55 PM
Louisiana,

I used to carry a revolver, but only carry a semi-auto now. When people say 1 shot will suffice, they are playing the odds. Maybe in 1 out of 2 out of 3, one shot is enough, other times it is not. Do you feel lucky enough to go with those odds?

I want a larger magazine capacity and a faster reload. My own experience is that a quality auto like the BERETTA, GLOCK , SIG or SPRINGFIELD ARMORY XD series will be as reliable as a revolver for average to trained shooters.

If you have not had "malfunction clearing drills" as part of your training, you may be better off with a revolver.

I go on the "everything will go wrong theory". Sure, you get tight groups on a paper target, but you are not in pain from being punched or kicked, it is not in a dark parking lot and the paper target is not shooting, punching or stabbing at you when you fired your group at the target.

My chosen home defense gun is a large capacity 9m.m. loaded with hollowpoint ammo. It also has a light mounted on the rail. Why? See above paragraph.
I will trade the extra power of a .357 magnum or .40 S&W with the high velocity 155 grain loads for the extra control and reduced stress of a 9m.m. on the shooter every time.

Whatever you decide, practice often and be safe.

Jim

smle41
March 9, 2013, 01:26 AM
While I believe that Golden has good points (such as, a good light is a good thing), I think he brings up one on the reasons I am more comfortable with a revolver than I was when I used autoloaders more: I have undergone more malfunction drills than I can shake a stick at, and most forms of these drills use both hands. To use a famous case, Zimmerman suffered a weapon malfunction in part because holding onto the weapon with the "iron grip of death" it may take to form the immoveable platform that the slide must reciprocate on is hard when one is having one's head pounded into the pavement, and a malfunction drill must be even more difficult.
My observations and readings, and limited experience, lend me to think that the event will be very rapid, from odd angles, and we may not get the weapon out and in action before something happens that greatly degrade our skills (I am not saying they will land the first blow, but I think we must concede the possibility...) The majority of weapon malfunctions that occur are user induced, most often when movement, "off-handedness", peculiar position (already on the ground splayed out ). At my little range quite recently I have seen an excellent shooter having his only jam with a XDM subcompact as he was attempting to hit a target from a supine position one handed. One round was fired but not ejected fully, rendering the remaining round count moot. In some amount of shooting, I have seen that happen a few times with even high quality semis, not once seeing a "limp wrist" revolver malfunction...
Such a list could be endless, and possibly fruitless.
As a tangent, this may also lead into a discussion of "back up guns" and other layers..
Yet I think a strength of the revolver is it's resilience in a situation where one must guard and fire having imbibed residual mace.
If there is no way of keeping from being rushed, i.e. with obstacles or barricades or such impendimentia to block, contain, etc, the enemy's movement, I am also afraid that capacity may be rendered moot. Only on ranges where the targets can "charge" towards us can we more fully appreciate that the mob can be beating one into the hospital more quickly than we previously guessed. This is also a training scenario that I have seen, experienced, and it was an eye-opener, I recommend it to all.
What I am postulating is that we question the supposition that "more rounds necessarily equals more targets engaged/neutralized", based minimally on the speed of attackers or mechanical malfunction, or the rapidity of the engagement.
Thanks to all, especially to Golden for his excellent choice of home defense pistols :)

smle41
March 9, 2013, 01:36 AM
Also, I ought to clarify regarding the incident I mentioned where 8 rounds were used; the primary attacker was likely neutralized in the first one or three, but, in the defender's excitement, and by his own admission, fired till the slide locked back on the emptied magazine. In terms of timeframe, the incident lasted perhaps 5 to 10 seconds from initial threat, through escalation, concluding with very wounded primary aggressor, empty pistol, scattered criminals, etc...
So one may not conclude how many rounds were "necessary " on that one..
Thank you.

skoro
March 9, 2013, 07:42 AM
For us ordinary civilians, it is.

Kleanbore
March 9, 2013, 08:37 AM
Anyone who has (1) taken any good defensive pistol shooting training, (2) considered the possibility of having to defend against two rapidly moving violent criminal actors, and (3) done any research at all into the subject of handgun wounding effectiveness, understands that there are serious risks that may be mitigated by having more than six shots instantly available.

JohnKSa addressed that very effectively in Post 16.

John's analysis caused me to retire my five shot revolver as a primary carry weapon.

I carry a semiautomatic. If I chose to carry revolvers, I would carry two of them.

R.W.Dale
March 9, 2013, 10:06 AM
SMLE brings up from very well thought out and articulated points.

ALL and I MEAN ALL defense training is from the LEO centric point of view.

But I'm not a police officer and I'm not a diamond/precious stone courier. While possible the eventuality of me being faced by multiple DETERMINED attackers bent on MY destruction is pretty unlikely. More likely is me having to fight off one determined stealthily executed attack that's already been at least partially effective as dictated by law before I can employ my firearm in defense. As SMLE points out there are no especially effective one handed malfunction drills. Again to cite the infamous case I must overcome the guy beating on me before I engage those multiple attackers who are unusually determined enough to press the attack after one of their close comrades has been neutralized.


In summary I think a 5 shot revolver is much better suited to non LEO (I hate the term civilians because the police are too) than the entire body of LAW ENFORCEMENT research/writing and training would indicate. Not that they're all wrong mind, just that bad guys are wanting different things from me than they would a police officer or security contractor


After all its not a stretch to extend the line of reasoning that if six isn't enough than its very likely that eight isn't either. Now what pistol holds 8 shots that's widely considered to be the pinnacle of defensive pistols?

As to me the revolver on my hip holds seven 125g rem sjhp 357 magnum rounds

posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

Kleanbore
March 9, 2013, 11:38 AM
Posted by R.W.Dale: ALL and I MEAN ALL defense training is from the LEO centric point of view.No, it is not.

While possible the eventuality of me being faced by multiple DETERMINED attackers bent on MY destruction is pretty unlikely.The likelihood of your being attacked at all on any one day is far less than remote. The likelihood of being attacked someday is much higher, but still low. However, the potential consequences are extremely severe.

If you are attacked, however, the likelihood of your being attacked by more than one person is by no means insignificant.

More likely is me having to fight off one determined stealthily executed attack...In our area, the majority of violent crimes, except for bank robberies, involve two or more attackers.

...that's already been at least partially effective as dictated by law before I can employ my firearm in defense.Well, the law does say that the threat must be imminent, but it says absolutely nothing about partial effectiveness.

...I must overcome the guy beating on me ... If someone has already struck you with a contact weapon, you are in a world of hurt. A blade though a tendon can put you out of action immediately. You need to react much faster and prevent that.

...before I engage those multiple attackers who are unusually determined enough to press the attack after one of their close comrades has been neutralized.People often assume that if one shoots one attacker, the others will retreat.

Consider this:

The second attacker may not realize what has happened.
He may decide that breaking off the attack at that point is too risky.
He may have no means of escape without your car and keys.


In summary I think a 5 shot revolver is much better suited to non LEO (I hate the term civilians because the police are too) than the entire body of LAW ENFORCEMENT research/writing and training would indicate.Try some civilian FoF training and see whether you still think so.

I retired my five shot revolver from primary carry after reading JohnKSa's analysis referred to twice earlier. I had already (1) taken a pretty good course in civilian high performance defensive pistol shooting; (2) researched the subject of handgun wounding effectiveness; and (3) studied real world civilian defensive encounters. Frankly, I should have come to the same conclusion without John's help.

By the way, we use this definition of civilian: A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.

...just that bad guys are wanting different things from me than they would a police officer or security contractor From a policeman, a criminal wants to escape.

From a civilian, he may want to escape. Or he may want money, an automobile, another family member, or perhaps the honor of having killed, and it is likely that he does not want witnesses.

Wishoot
March 9, 2013, 03:10 PM
I've been carrying an LCR for quite some time and I'm now beginning to rethink this choice. With gang violence on the rise, I would feel a bit more comfortable with several more rounds. I really don't care if statistics say that most fights end after three rounds or whatever. Given the firepower of what some of the bad guys are carrying and their complete lack of regard for innocents, the more rounds the better.

sidheshooter
March 9, 2013, 03:23 PM
I read the original thread with John's spreadsheet analysis with great interest and agreement. The one critique I would offer, if it's even a critique, is that the success percentages may not be that linear, since time is not factored in.

Put simply, one may run out of time-one way or the other-before the opportunity to fire 12 responsible shots at two determined attackers presents itself. The sweet spot may well sit somewhere between the 7+1 of a single stack compact and the 10+1 of a G26.

Given the factor of a diminishing time curve as the round count goes up, it might be a better usage of energy working on increasing hit percentages rather than ammo cap beyond a certain minimum.

Knowing who populates this board, I will never use the term "extensive" to describe my own training, but it's probably much more extensive work on close-up "fighting" skills than the average "shooter" (whomever that is), and much of my work has been done with the user error-resistant wheelie. I'm therefore good with 6 as an arbitrary number for unlikely threat mitigation in my admittedly low-speed life--a life that more accurately begs the statement "six is waaay better than nothing" more than "8+1 is waaay better than 6".

JM K-frame O.

golden
March 9, 2013, 03:34 PM
Thank you SMLE,

I understand the reluctance to give up on the revolver's reliability. My experience has been different. Over the years, I have seen revolvers fail to function more often than you would imagine.

I have seen a COLT PYTHON lock up because of a warped frame. A S&W model 25 with a misaligned cylinder that locked it up. A S&W model 28 that had to go back to the factory to get the cylinder to turn smoothly.

Also, when I went through FLETC, the federal law enforcement academy, we were issued S&W model 13'S. Out of the 47 issued, a dozen had problems. I could not remove the sideplate on mine, as the screws had been torqued on. Several guns were out of alignment with a few spitting lead to the side.
Later on, at least one of these guns burst the forcing cone when using the 125 grain jhp .357 magnum load.

When my agency adapted a standard gun, the BERETTA 96D Brigadier, that was the end of choosing things. I have now been using and carrying a double action only, semi auto for 15 years.
As a result, my preferrence is for a large capacity semi auto with night sights and a double action only trigger. That is what I use at work and am most familiar with.
Adding the light was my choice, but after the first night qualification, it was not an option as far as I was concerned.

I have been trained to fire two shots at a time, except for close (3 yards or less) shooting, then it is fire till they drop. I expect, that I will do the same with my off duty gun, if I do, the first time I fire, I would have been down to 3 rounds in my old CHARTER ARMS UNDERCOVER or S&W model 38.
That is not enough for me.

Also, when I had to do the off angle and supine shooting with the BERETTA 96D, it never jammed. In fact, it almost never jammed for any of the transition class. The only jams were with people who were unfamiliar with firearms and they really needed a lot more training. Some were still carrying their spare ammo in belt loops!
I will not say that all other autos are this reliable, but my experience with BERETTA, GLOCK, SIG and SPRINGFIELD ARMORY has convinced me that they are that reliable.
Other brands may be as well, but these are what I personally have experience with.

A larger revolver can hold more ammo and use much more powerful ammo, but they are much harder to conceal than a Sub-Compact 9m.m. and weigh a lot more. My old 681 seemed to weigh twice as much at the end of a 10 or 12hour day as it did when I put it on.
When I switched to the GLOCK 19 with a 50 percent increase in ammo availabilty on my belt and a LOT LESS WEIGHT, it was like mana from heaven.

My preference for a semi auto comes down to my belief that a well maintained, high quality auto is just a reliable as a revolver and that the physical characteristics of the semi-auto make it a better choice, at least to me.

As I mentioned before, others may have had different experiences and different levels of training.

Jim

bsms
March 9, 2013, 07:36 PM
If you shoot one bad guy in the face, and the other bad guys continue the attack, you are probably screwed no matter how many rounds you are carrying. If 6 bad guys rush you in the face of fire, odds are very good that some of them are going to reach you.

I'll also maintain that no one I've met has practiced shooting on the run at running targets enough to have any competence in that sort of shooting with any gun. If that is the standard, then I don't think 1 person in 1000 is 'adequately prepared'.

Most days, I'm hard pressed to conceal a 5 shot J-frame. My trips to town regularly include trips to the military base, where I cannot legally carry ANY gun on me or in my car. So the reality is that I'm often unarmed, or armed with a knife and mace. So I actually feel pretty heavily armed with a 5 shot 38...

When hiking, since the US government doesn't believe in enforcing borders against drug smugglers, I normally carry a Ruger Vaquero Montado plus my J-frame. If those 11 shots aren't enough, then I guess I'll die - just not alone.

In the end, it is a personal choice. You have to balance your concern for the threat with what you are willing to carry and practice with, and also whatever scruples you have about entering places that ban guns. Happily, crime in the USA is very geographic. The bad spots are very bad, and the rest of the USA isn't bad at all. Consider this: In 2011, 70% of all murder VICTIMS in Chicago had prior police records...

http://imageshack.us/a/img545/8504/vaqmont1.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img39/2604/img400small649.jpg

JohnKSa
March 9, 2013, 11:31 PM
Put simply, one may run out of time-one way or the other-before the opportunity to fire 12 responsible shots at two determined attackers presents itself. The sweet spot may well sit somewhere between the 7+1 of a single stack compact and the 10+1 of a G26.Of course, it depends heavily on the circumstances of the situation, but I think that there's merit to your analysis.

The point of the exercise I went through to calculate the odds was more about getting a feel for what would happen in the ideal situation as opposed to finding a solution that would work all the time. There is no way to do the latter, but you can look at the former.

In other words, assuming that the attacker(s) is(are) determined, what are the chances of making 2 hits on each attacker with real-world hit/miss rates assuming that EVERYTHING else pretty much goes your way. In other words, assuming that 2 hits does the trick on each, that you don't waste time shooting the first guy after he's already neutralized, assuming that you don't get injured or killed before your handgun runs dry, assuming your gun doesn't malfunction, etc.

Clearly, (and I tried to make this point in the initial thread as well as in every post I've made referencing it) having some huge round count in the gun doesn't mean anything if you only get to shoot once before you are killed, or if both attackers run as soon as you draw and you never fire even once.

However, the analysis does provide a very accurate way of determining the chances of making, for example, 4 hits with 5 shots--4 hits being the minimum number of hits that a professional trainer would typically advise to neutralize 2 opponents.

smle41
March 10, 2013, 12:33 AM
HR.W.Dale, thank you... :)
First, I do think that there is a grain of truth in your reference to classes and instructors being at least generally tilted towards a "SWAT Tactical Officer" sort of thing; My experiences in or with them lack the breadth to categorically state "all", but the ones I have attended certainly had that kind of flavor. On this tangent, I publicly confess that I may not attend any more of them as the last one was disappointing in the arrogance and attitude of the instructors, and how little of it seemed to pertain to everyday life; in this sense, along these lines, I agree with both RW and Kleanbore
Edit- understanding "all" as exaggeration to illustrate a frustration we have in common?
Second, if I may, I think the bridge between RW and Kleanbore is found in parsing RW's phrase "one attack" and using the understanding (RW, please correct any misapprehension) that he is writing, with the word "attack", one single incident that may involve more than one "attacker", or, persons involved in the single incident. This is what I have most experienced, spoken about, read of, etc; in this case, perhaps we are all thinking of the same thing. What I envision is one fast incident rather than several seperate assaults where the enemy regroups to attack repeatedly (though such is possible, as indeed virtually anything is, but may justifiably removed from the parameters of this thread).
There are pertinent notes to be taken from the "JohnkSA" thread, and I want to add to his thoughts that the statistics he helpfully provides should be considered alongside those of common non-uniformed self defense cases. Let me go ahead and controversially theorize that self defense cases may involve a higher "percentage " of hits. Anecdotally, there are numerous incidents of stupendous numbers of rounds being fired by public officers with nary a hit on target, which must skew the hit/miss ratio. Anecdotally again, the majority of cases involving private citizens, in 1, or, 5, or 8/9, the hit ratio was 100%. No one is suggesting that we are assuming that all private persons will always hit, nor are we assuming that all public employees will always miss. But it is not wrong to consider that statistics compiled may have more balance on one side than another....
Edit... two local incidents, 2 rounds fired before malfunction, and 4 rounds fired before malfunction, no hits were made though the attacks were stopped. So, in these civilian cases, the miss ratio was 100%...
Golden is irrefutable when he writes that every weapon can jam, every car can break down, and every toaster can fail to toast. A "fresh from the factory" Ruger Alaskan was out of time, just in time for its inaugural competitive shoot. Fortunately for me, the paper didn't care, and Ruger was very nice about it. Murphy is out there... in fact, some others should thank me because Murphy is so busy with me, he doesn't have time to follow you... :)
Sidheshooter raises a valid point, and one which occupies much of my own thought process, and seems to get short shrift. Time is perhaps the most vital factor, in particular, the lack of it. One reason I so highly support training activities including the above-referenced one in which a mechanically- powered target is rushed toward the "victim" is that it reinforces the knowledge, harrowing knowledge, that one's time can be dreadfully curtailed.
BSMS hits on something we are considering; what if these attackers, in this incident, are the uncommon sort and are determined, to the point of willingly sacrificing their lives, to destroy me, this changes the equation. And, as a few of our posters have noted, those types of attackers exist (let us face the fact that the Mumbai Jihad did occur: perhaps an outlier, but, it did occur). To this situation, where the group of assailants does not care who among them, or how many among them become casualties, I question whether a deciding factor will be our ammunition reservoire (let alone my thought that such an incident involving such attackers is rare to the point of me not really considering it).
Finally, we can be comforted in knowing that "bsms" is in the main correct about criminals and crime; the vermin are more of a threat to each other (both inter and intra) than they are to us in terms of murderous intent. I have worked as a lowly security guard in many places over many years, as needs dictated, and not infrequently came across gangs (usually the lackeys and other such useful idiots/low-hanging fruit), and as they would shoot, fight, stab or slay each other (and did), I never had a problem in getting them to leave parks, ports or garages. Being a non-gang person, I was not a threat to their trade and not on their "kill list". I use this anecdote in support of the general notion bsms presents, as I understand it, please correct me if I do not...
Thank you. :)

Chris-bob
March 10, 2013, 05:00 AM
When you need 7 shots, 6 will not be enough. When you only needed 1 shot, 6 will be overkill. No one knows when/if they will ever need more than 1 shot. Fortunately for us, we have the 2nd Amendment that allows us to carry 400+ rounds if we want.

Only you can decide how many shots you feel you need. I like to carry my Kel-Tec PF-9 in the right hip, my XD-9 on the left, and a Charter Arms Undercover .38 in my pocket when I know I will be away from home for more than a few hours or out in the woods. Might be overkill, but won't be if I ever need it.

Kleanbore
March 10, 2013, 09:56 AM
Posted by sidheshooter: Put simply, one may run out of time-one way or the other-before the opportunity to fire 12 responsible shots at two determined attackers presents itself. The sweet spot may well sit somewhere between the 7+1 of a single stack compact and the 10+1 of a G26.I agree with John that there is merit to that point.

As a matter of fact, I now carry either a Ruger SR9c (10+1), an Smith M&P 9c (12+1), or a .45 (7+1).

I would not expect to empty any of them, but I do not to tempt the odds, nor do I want to be left with an empty firearm after a defensive encounter.

Given the factor of a diminishing time curve as the round count goes up, it might be a better usage of energy working on increasing hit percentages rather than ammo cap beyond a certain minimum.Certainly! But let no one confuse what he can do at the range on a stationary target with what he would be able to do after having drawn and presented as quickly as humanly possible against someone running around the end of one's car at breakneck speed.

I'm therefore good with 6 as an arbitrary number for unlikely threat mitigation in my admittedly low-speed life--a life that more accurately begs the statement "six is waaay better than nothing" more than "8+1 is waaay better than 6"

And I was perfectly happy with five when I was going to a store in a "good" neighborhood in the daytime. But then someone here pointed out to me that when the need arises, the need is likely to be the same regardless of the prior circumstances. I had been taking into account the lower likelihood of being accosted in the first place.

Bad analysis--I should have known better. One should always consider the conditional probability rather than the cumulative probability in any kind of risk management.

That realization and John's analysis led to my immediate retirement of the J-frame for primary carry.

Of course six is better than nothing. As a matter of fact, six is a lot better than five. Remember Colt and the "all important sixth round"? John's simple calculation really drives the point home.

Consider this, however. While 13+1 may be on the high side, John's necessarily oversimplified assumptions probably result in the overstatement of the probability of success at the low end.

Why?

Well, what do think the odds would be of a defender's being able to stop shooting the first of two fast moving opponents after hitting him twice, or after more upon realizing that two hits did not do the trick? When you think about it, you are not at all unlikely to be down four rounds or more regardless before ever directing your attention to a second attacker.

Given that, given my aversion to not having a margin, and not wanting to be left empty, if I were presented only a choice between six and fourteen, I would invariably choose the latter, even though I would never expect to fire fourteen.

Of course, we do have other choices.

JRH6856
March 10, 2013, 01:50 PM
if I were presented only a choice between six and fourteen, I would invariably choose the latter, even though I would never expect to fire fourteen.

Or as Colion Noir put it: "'Gee, I wish I had fewer rounds.' said no one in a gunfight, ever."

easyg
March 10, 2013, 03:08 PM
I have seen a COLT PYTHON lock up because of a warped frame. A S&W model 25 with a misaligned cylinder that locked it up. A S&W model 28 that had to go back to the factory to get the cylinder to turn smoothly.

Also, when I went through FLETC, the federal law enforcement academy, we were issued S&W model 13'S. Out of the 47 issued, a dozen had problems. I could not remove the sideplate on mine, as the screws had been torqued on. Several guns were out of alignment with a few spitting lead to the side.
Later on, at least one of these guns burst the forcing cone when using the 125 grain jhp .357 magnum load.
Notice that all the revolvers you mention had problems that were discovered upon initial inspection and initial testing.
They were not perfecting functioning handguns that just suddenly crapped out for no apparent reason.

Once you have determined that your revolver functions as it should...no warped frame or bent crane or such....and once you clean and load it, its going to be stone cold reliable.

The same cannot be said of an autoloader...

You can have a perfectly functioning autoloader, one that you have shot thousands of rounds with, and for no apparent reason it can suddenly, out of the blue with no warning, experience a failure to feed or a failure to eject.
I've seen it happen too many times.

And there's always to possibility of a hard primer or a dud round that will make an autoloader choke.

There's just no getting around the fact that a "perfectly functioning" revolver is much more reliable than a "perfectly functioning" autoloader.

Now, is six shots enough?

Maybe, and maybe not.

But considering the fact that your otherwise perfectly functioning autoloader might suddenly, and without warning, become a one-shot handgun, there's not much reason to choose an autoloader over a revolver.



If you have not had "malfunction clearing drills" as part of your training, you may be better off with a revolver.

I go on the "everything will go wrong theory". Sure, you get tight groups on a paper target, but you are not in pain from being punched or kicked, it is not in a dark parking lot and the paper target is not shooting, punching or stabbing at you when you fired your group at the target.
Can you perform a malfunction clearing drill when you are in pain from being punched or kicked, or when you are in a dark parking lot being shot at or punched or stabbed?

There very fact that you need to practice malfunction clearing drills proves that the autoloader is not as reliable as the revolver.
That's just the nature of the beast.


Easy

tomrkba
March 10, 2013, 03:22 PM
Carry a Glock/HK/SIG etc (with a spare full sized magazine) and an S&W J or K Frame in 38 Special or 357 Magnum. There is no reason not to have the best of both worlds (unless you are in New Mexico).

JRH6856
March 10, 2013, 03:36 PM
There very fact that you need to practice malfunction clearing drills proves that the autoloader is not as reliable as the revolver.

It actually proves nothing, it merely suggests. When a revolver malfunctions (and they do), clearing the malfunction can be as simple as pulling the trigger again, but if that fails, clearing can be so difficult as to make the attempt when under duress impractical or impossible and practicing to do the impossible is hardly worthwhile.

Warp
March 10, 2013, 04:35 PM
But considering the fact that your otherwise perfectly functioning autoloader might suddenly, and without warning, become a one-shot handgun, there's not much reason to choose an autoloader over a revolver.



This is your opinion.

I disagree with your opinion, as do many others. There are plenty of very good reasons to choose a semi automatic bottom feeder over a revolver. That is why so, so many people do so, and why virtually every law enforcement agency in the country, and virtually every military in the world, does so.

All of those people, and departments, and countries, that opt to carry semi autos aren't wrong.

Neither are you, if you choose a revolver.

Informed, reasonable, rational decisions do not have to be the same for everybody.

sidheshooter
March 10, 2013, 04:40 PM
As an aside, there are malf drills for a revolver. I don't practice all of them, since a couple of the valuable ones are abusive, but I do visualize them as part of training. Grant Cunningham has detailed some last-ditch malf repairs in his revolver book, for those who are interested.

I am a fairly die-hard wheelie fan, and will probably stand pat for now (for reasons articulated earlier) but make no mistake: for folks like John and Kleanbore and others who have their reasons for retiring J's and SP101s in favor of larger cap compacts, you wont be getting any lip from me. I may well ultimately do the same in favor of my current heartthrob, my model 12 K-snub, for some of the same reasons.

smle41
March 10, 2013, 05:03 PM
I know it seems that all I am doing is presenting stories in lieu of data, but I do think it is valid to draw from real life stories and try to learn any applicability to the present or future.
So, if you will indulge me, I would like to share one example, as I think it pertains. I do not know the veracity, but the lady concerned is trustworthy in my view, so I trust her recollection of events is accurate. At one point, near the "safe" and "good" little town of Troy, Idaho, said young woman was in one of the fields, near the road, tending the livestock when a vehicle containing three migrant workers passed by, then turned around and passed by slowly, then again, quite slowly, to come to a stop on the side of the road by the fence, about 10 yards from the lone woman. Naturally her alarm bells were ringing, she listened to them... the 3 males exited the car, asked questions regarding the presence of family, other laborers, etc. After 2 had crossed over onto the property (over a ditch), she felt it might be better to have clear access to her single action revolver and adjusted her coat accordingly. At this movement, all 3 males backed away, got into the car and left.
Now, in discussing this case with her, she stated her belief that she was being "interviewed" until they saw the weapon. I argue that they were continuing the victim selection process until they left, as they attempted to ascertain her mindset, skillset, and not her sidearm. In her body language, friendly but firm tone, physical motions, she exhibited a resolution to act, demonstrated skills that showed some skill, and they became aware of a tool.
It is common to become perhaps too concerned with the tool, and not concerned enough with determination or the ability to use a tool to the best that we can.
I want to tie the above with a couple of completely unscientific notes. Using the great example above of assailants coming around the truck at breakneck speed and reinforcing what JohnKSa and sidheshooter are writing. From timing my old, short pudgy self, I can walk halfway around the vehicle in apx. 6 seconds, trot in apx 3 seconds. Breakneck speed for sporting gym rat 17 y.o. youths are likely about 2, not longer than 3, conceivably about 1 second. Assuming 2 attackers have assessed the defender as their victim, the defender's likelihood of an unscathed victory are not what most of us would like.
In such a dire situation, we may agree with bsms (and others) that at least we will hurt the adversary in return, and not just be an "easy victim". This attitude itself, I suggest, is the mindset that will keep us from having to use the toolset.
On a side note, I was under the impression that sideplate screws were supposed to tightly down, and, unless one is a gunsmith or such, we ought not to remove it as a usual thing?
I digress.. the lady in the case above is illustrative both of mindset and of the use of barriers, the best time where I think the "high" capacity can be helpful, as the attack, or, attackers, are slowed/ blocked/ canalized etc and so are not strangling me in about a second.
Thanks :)

sidheshooter
March 10, 2013, 05:20 PM
Totally OT, but, I have much more fond memories of Troy, ID. That's where renown holster maker Rob Leahy of simply rugged lived when he started making holsters for friends. He ran some great "Paladin"-ish practical pistol matches back in the day. Excellent training for the time, and a super cool guy.

Sorry for the diversion; carry on.

antiquus
March 10, 2013, 06:19 PM
I'm not interested in a gun that cannot be fired from a coat pocket, I wear coats the majority of the year where I am.

I do want a gun that's hard to grab, and I want the best handle to be the one I have a hold of.

I'm not too interested in a gun which will jam if both me and an assailant have a grip on it and it's fired. I want a gun that is totally usable during the time both he and I have a grip on it.

2 shots at 2 feet in 2 seconds. Old formula learned the hard way.

JRH6856
March 10, 2013, 06:37 PM
I want a gun that is totally usable during the time both he and I have a grip on it.

That kind of limits you to something with one or more fixed barrels, and an internal hammer with a rotating firing pin, doesn't it?

Kleanbore
March 10, 2013, 06:54 PM
Posted by antiquus: 2 shots at 2 feet in 2 seconds.If he's moving at five meters per second, he will move thirty feet in those two seconds. If it is the first of your two shots that hits him at two feet, it will likely be your last.

Dennis Tueller showed us that an attacker can close on us in a very short time indeed; one may not be able to fire until an attacker is very close indeed. But if an attacker with a blade gets within two feet, the defender is in serious trouble by any standard.

Relying on wounding effectiveness alone at that point, or even at five feet, would be foolhardy. One had better be moving away very quickly, and if at all possible, putting something between oneself and the attacker.

Warp
March 10, 2013, 09:04 PM
I want a gun that is totally usable during the time both he and I have a grip on it.


That rules out revolvers.

He grabs it, cylinder can't rotate, you get zero shots off.

If, however, you had a semi auto in that situation, you would get one shot off before the slide failed to cycle properly and you had a malfunction.

Just sayin'

DNS
March 10, 2013, 09:19 PM
Well then thank God I carry an NAA mini.
There's barely enough room for my hand...:D

David E
March 11, 2013, 02:18 AM
If, however, you had a semi auto in that situation, you would get one shot off before the slide failed to cycle properly and you had a malfunction.

Just sayin'

Unless the badguy pushed the slide out of battery preventing it from firing.

Just sayin'

Warp
March 11, 2013, 09:26 AM
Unless the badguy pushed the slide out of battery preventing it from firing.

Just sayin'

Valid point.

Either way, claiming revolver > semi auto under the belief that the gun will bill "totally usable" even when the attacker is grabbing/holding it, just plain doesn't work.

seeker_two
March 11, 2013, 06:34 PM
Either way, claiming revolver > semi auto under the belief that the gun will bill "totally usable" even when the attacker is grabbing/holding it, just plain doesn't work.


Maybe if it's a derringer......

Kleanbore
March 11, 2013, 06:57 PM
^^^^^^

The point has been made. Let's get back on topic.

Stainz
March 12, 2013, 10:34 AM
Eight pages and I have read nothing that would convince me to abandon my J-frame CCWs or larger revolvers for defending myself, my car, or my home. But - I constantly employ 'situational awareness' as well as consciously avoiding 'bad situations', such as the less desireable side of town. When I was POOW in the USN, I often was the only armed sailor between the gangway and the ship's proper, including it's nuclear weapons. Also, I would be the only armed guard accompaning a disbursing clerk to the base and back with enough cash to cash the squadron's payroll checks, if needed - ~$300k in small bills. I carried a worn loaded 1911 - and a spare loaded mag. Fourteen rounds of .45 ACP ball ammo was deemed 'enough' for those chores, admittedly over four decades ago.

I chose an Airweight J-frame, like my 642, because I could pocket carry it 24/7, my prior L-frame 5-shooter .44 Special, a 296, being too large for some of my pants' pockets. I went from occasional carry with the 296 to 24/7 with the 642 - that was important. Earlier this year I added a 351PD - lighter weight and 7 x .22 WMR - to my selection. Home defense includes my 2 5/8" PC627 UDR x8 and my wife's 2" 10 and 4" 64, all kept loaded with 158gr LHPSWC +P's. Relatively easy to get, I also have a few other revolvers - then my safe revolvers, which all have speedloaders or moonclips full of defensive ammo stashed in a drawer. No shotguns, save my Governor - and one carbine, an M&P 15, with a few mags loaded and stowed elsewhere. Not the best situation, I am certain. But - it fits 'me', my psyche, and my situation. YMMV.

Stainz

easyg
March 13, 2013, 11:59 AM
There's just no getting around the fact that autoloaders are more ammo sensitive than revolvers.
You can have an otherwise perfectly functioning autoloader that, for no apparent reason, will fail to chamber a round.

45_auto
March 13, 2013, 01:26 PM
You can have an otherwise perfectly functioning autoloader that, for no apparent reason, will fail to chamber a round.

That's why all the police and military forces don't use autoloading pistols and rifles.

Oops, seems that they do!

Could that be because the probability of a properly maintained autoloader failing to chamber a round is quite low in relation to the benefits gained?

Warp
March 13, 2013, 01:31 PM
He has a point. All else equal, a semi auto IS more likely to experience a stoppage than a revolver.

"Limp wristing"
Failure to feed
Failure to extract
Failure to eject

These are all things the revolver shooter doesn't have to worry about for the 5-8 shots, or whatever, their pistol holds.

We all have to decide for ourselves which set of advantages is more appealing to us and our situation. Semi autos obviously have their own set of advantages.

Certaindeaf
March 13, 2013, 01:36 PM
Back in the old days you were very lucky if you had a single shot pistol and then perhaps a large knife. That didn't stop people from going into pretty bad lands or what all. I wouldn't worry about it one way or another.

Thaddeus Jones
March 13, 2013, 01:38 PM
It doesn't appear that there are many folks present in this thread who were TRAINED to fight with a revolver. Perhaps y'all are just young revolver afficianados. Or perhaps the old revolver fighting tips and tricks are now relegated to historys dustbin.

Anyways, it USE TO BE COMMON KNOWLEDGE, among revolver carrying folks, that if some miscreant closed his hand around the cylinder of your revolver, while you were fixin to shoot him, you simply rotated the revolver while pulling the trigger in the direction OPPOSITE of the direction the cylinder rotates in.

Another words if you had a S&W, you used your grip on your revolver to rotate the gun CLOCKWISE while squeezing the trigger. If you had a Colt, you rotated it counter clockwise.

Doesn't anybody teach this stuff anymore? I guess not based on the number of folks who only feel well armed with a bazillion rounds..........

I'm a dinosaur and the meteor is almost here............

Warp
March 13, 2013, 01:40 PM
It doesn't appear that there are many folks present in this thread who were TRAINED to fight with a revolver. Perhaps y'all are just young revolver afficianados. Or perhaps the old revolver fighting tips and tricks are now relegated to historys dustbin.

Anyways, it USE TO BE COMMON KNOWLEDGE, among revolver carrying folks, that if some miscreant closed his hand around the cylinder of your revolver, while you were fixin to shoot him, you simply rotated the revolver while pulling the trigger in the direction OPPOSITE of the direction the cylinder rotates in.

Another words if you had a S&W, you used your grip on your revolver to rotate the gun CLOCKWISE while squeezing the trigger. If you had a Colt, you rotated it counter clockwise.

Doesn't anybody teach this stuff anymore? I guess not based on the number of folks who only feel well armed with a bazillion rounds..........

I'm a dinosaur and the meteor is almost here............

I've gotta say...I never heard that before...but it sounds good to me!

But, as you guessed, I (and probably man others) was never trained to fight with a revolver. I was trained to fight with a semi automatic, and learned revolver on my own. It is not surprising that little things like that are missing from my knowledge base.

That's what I get for being 20-something, eh? :)

tipoc
March 13, 2013, 01:49 PM
Wow!

Seems I can't trust any of my guns, wheelguns or semis! Not enough rounds, not enough reliability, too many rounds that encourage me to miss a lot, a guy can grab a gun and keep it from firing, a guy can grab my gun and make it fire, a slow fat guy can run around my car faster than I can shoot, a fast skinny guy can duck my 5 shots from a J frame and make me wish I had a Glock. I can be attacked by one tall, fat guy who will absorb 5 shots and say "Thank You", I will be pursued by 50 Black and Mexican gangbangers for no reason other than they don't like the way I look and they all have body armor!

8 pages of fear and arguments as to why guns are unreliable!

Good thing I have a knife.

tipoc

JRH6856
March 13, 2013, 02:17 PM
8 pages of fear and arguments as to why guns are unreliable!

A well made, well maintained firearm is usually reliable in the hands of a well trained individual...usually, but not always. So be prepared for the failure, should it occur. Depend on yourself for your survival, not your equipment.

SharpsDressedMan
March 13, 2013, 02:24 PM
I carry both revolvers and autos, but USUALLY not at the same time. I know my guns, and I trust and maintain the guns that I use. Use whichever you prefer; they both have platforms that have six rounds, ifthat is your magic number. And don't let anyone tell you that six is not enough. They don't know, and neither do I. It's a crap shoot out there. :uhoh:

tipoc
March 13, 2013, 02:32 PM
Seems someone missed my sarcasm. I shoulda put a smiley face there. :)

But there are 8 pages here of folks trying to convince each other that none of them knows what they are doing. Maybe they are all right. That's kinda funny.

tipoc

smkummer
March 13, 2013, 02:39 PM
I don't fear because I followed rule 1 and that is to always have a gun. One plan of action always includes using the downed perps weapon if I run out or low in a multi bad guy situation. I don't look for trouble and will avoid if I can but if no safe escape is present then I will only draw if I plan to use it. If the situation is not resolved by the show of force, then it gets fired. No warning shots. I shoot to stop the threat and that may be up to 6 shots.

pezo
March 13, 2013, 02:55 PM
After reading this thread I made a decision. I will keep my simple and reliable wheel guns. If six or heck most of the time five aren't enough! I will reload like I practice! Quickly with the speed loaders I carry! Then it will be six or five again! Ha!

Lj1941
March 13, 2013, 03:08 PM
What would Bill Jordan do or say?

JRH6856
March 13, 2013, 03:41 PM
And don't let anyone tell you that six is not enough. They don't know, and neither do I. It's a crap shoot out there.

6 is probably enough until the crap starts shooting back. :scrutiny:

tomrkba
March 13, 2013, 04:00 PM
It doesn't appear that there are many folks present in this thread who were TRAINED to fight with a revolver.

It's difficult to find someone to teach managing a revolver's trigger at speed, much less fighting techniques.

But there are 8 pages here of folks trying to convince each other that none of them knows what they are doing. Maybe they are all right.

Too funny!!

SharpsDressedMan
March 13, 2013, 04:17 PM
Bill Jordan and Skeeter Skelton are turning over in their graves! :banghead:

sixgunner455
March 13, 2013, 05:05 PM
What would Bill Jordan do or say?

I don't know, but I bet, even as an old man, he was still the most dangerous man in the room.

tipoc
March 13, 2013, 05:41 PM
Bill Jordan and Skeeter Skelton are turning over in their graves!

Right next to them Alvin York and Jeff Cooper are as amazed.

tipoc

David E
March 13, 2013, 06:53 PM
Alvin York needed more than six shots.

R.W.Dale
March 13, 2013, 07:01 PM
Alvin York needed more than six shots.

Ill keep that in mind next time I'm ordered "over the top" and across no mans land.




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

Indifferent
March 14, 2013, 12:12 AM
I kinda see this as a no winner ever produced dialogue.
I know hot to operate a semi auto, however I feel if I was getting assaulted the only thing I honestly feel comfortable with is a 5 shot J frame. Point and click interface even through pockets. But that isn't the best gun, but there is no best gun for all situations. Just the best gun for you and your situation and what you are comfortable and proficient with. That's really all that matters if you hate a tool and don't know how to use that tool than you will most likely wind up not doing so well in your situation.

SharpsDressedMan
March 14, 2013, 07:37 AM
Alvin York needed more than six shots.
OH, NO HE DIDN'T! He RELOADED! :D

Kleanbore
March 14, 2013, 09:20 AM
Folks, there are some differences among soldiers, police officers, and armed citizens.

The soldier is most likely to be armed with a long arm or something larger.

The soldier and the police officer may properly have weapons in hand under circumstances in which the armed citizen may not.

Most--not all, but most--violent criminals would choose to try to escape from a police officer.

The armed citizen will likely not be supported or backed up by others in an armed confrontation.

If a soldier or police officer empties his or her firearm, he or she will reload if possible and will still be properly engaged in the confrontation as a function of duty.

The armed citizen is expected to avoid trouble whenever possible.

But that may not be possible. When it is not, he or she will have to do what is possible to survive and/or to protect loved ones against one, two, or more violent criminal actors in an extremely rapidly unfolding situation, with a defensive weapon of limited effectiveness that may not properly be presented except as a last resort. Should that weapon be emptied, the opportunity to reload would be rather unlikely to present itself until the immediate danger had passed.

The defender may not have time to fire even once. The defender may not have time to fire six times should that many be needed. Six may be enough--or not. It's a simple matter of risk asssessment and risk mitigation, and capacity is but one consideration.

I do not expect to ever have to draw, much less fire even once. But should it happen, I would certainly prefer more than six.

Checkman
March 14, 2013, 10:25 AM
Well said Kleanbore. Basically this thread is akin to scholars in the Middle Ages arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Certaindeaf
March 14, 2013, 10:27 AM
Well said Kleanbore. Basically this thread is akin to scholars in the Middle Ages arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Unless the pin stabbed back! lolz

David E
March 14, 2013, 10:50 AM
Alvin York needed more than six shots.
OH, NO HE DIDN'T! He RELOADED! :D

Perhaps you're not familiar with the incident referred to. He wouldn't have had time to reload.

seeker_two
March 14, 2013, 01:26 PM
Something I've noticed....

Back when revolvers ruled the LEO landscape, the prevalent tactic in a gunfight was "double-tap & evaluate". Seemed to work pretty well then....esp. when LEO's carried .357Mag revolvers.

When the LEO's started carrying autoloaders, the tactic then changed to "shoot until they hit the ground, reload, then evaluate". A lot more rounds got fired....but the results didn't change. If anything, more rounds seemed to hit things other than the BG....and the BG took more rounds before falling.

Another thing to think about....in the Miami Shootout, the fight started with semiautos....but it was ended with revolvers....

I think six shots is enough for most SD issues...if not, I don't think you'll have time for the 7th shot....

SharpsDressedMan
March 14, 2013, 01:32 PM
He fired his rifle from concealment, engaging machine gun nests prior to fending off a charge with a 1911 (7 shots, right?), but most PROBABLY had to charge his rifle (five shots, either M1917 Enfield or M1903 Springfield) more than once. So, if that's true, York RELOADED after FIVE shots with his rifle, possibly even more than once. Amazing what you can do witrh a cool head and clear conscience. He did fire more than six, but he reloaded (the rifle) as needed. Possibly a six shot revolver would have been as good as a 15 shot auto to York, for the deed that he did with the pistol, as we do not know how many he engaged during the charge.

Warp
March 14, 2013, 01:40 PM
Something I've noticed....

Back when revolvers ruled the LEO landscape, the prevalent tactic in a gunfight was "double-tap & evaluate". Seemed to work pretty well then...

By what measure?

I'm pretty certain that, over the decades, our officers have become less and less likely to be feloniously killed.

OldCavSoldier
March 14, 2013, 02:26 PM
I already clank when I walk......

Seriously, I agree with the sentiment that 5 in my J-frame is enough. When you add the look of an older guy who has been around the mountain, and lived through the trip, not without scars, mind you, THAT adds to the overall package.

OldCavSoldier
March 14, 2013, 02:32 PM
It's difficult to find someone to teach managing a revolver's trigger at speed, much less fighting techniques.



Too funny!!
I was originally trained to fight with a six-banger Colt DA revolver. When I got to life sustaining ability with that, THEN I was trained to fight with an auto....1911A1......the old guy who trained me back in the day said that "if you can keep alive with six, then seven in the mag and one in the spout should be a mite easier."

He was right.

seeker_two
March 14, 2013, 03:04 PM
I'm pretty certain that, over the decades, our officers have become less and less likely to be feloniously killed.


Are you also taking into account the use of bullet-resistant vests & improved medical treatment? What about eliminating the incidents where the officer never fired a shot?

A better measure is to compare the number of perps stopped to the number of rounds fired. And I'm pretty sure those results won't favor the autoloader as much as you think....

SwissArmyDad
March 14, 2013, 03:06 PM
for me considering a wheelgun has to do with very simple factors.

-My AR is fun to have out and loaded, but is somewhat intimidating for guests to see out, obviously, so back in the closet it goes.

-My XD9 5" is much easier to tote around and is generally comfortable in my jeans or work clothes that I wear 20-30% of the time around the house/property.

-The other 70-80% of the time that I'm wearing light rockclimbing/hiking shorts (REI style) or cargo shorts the XD is in my safe, and I'm unarmed doing tasks around the house/property, because of the weight/bulk of that large pistol.


In that case, 5 shots from a j-frame is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH (get it, 5..lol) better than being completely un-armed.

That's the way I look at it.

Warp
March 14, 2013, 03:14 PM
Are you also taking into account the use of bullet-resistant vests & improved medical treatment? What about eliminating the incidents where the officer never fired a shot?

A better measure is to compare the number of perps stopped to the number of rounds fired. And I'm pretty sure those results won't favor the autoloader as much as you think....

I don't see how that's a better measure than, you know, whether or not the officer died.

M1key
March 14, 2013, 03:15 PM
FBI studies show violent assaults often involve multiple assailants. Good luck with your 5-shot revolver. I'd rather carry a Glock 26 (good luck trying to grab it) or Glock 19.

M

SharpsDressedMan
March 14, 2013, 03:21 PM
FBI studies show violent assaults often involve multiple assailants. .......................................................Did you mean often, or sometimes? I find it hard to believe that most encounters are multiple assailants. Did they leave out rape, domestic assault, and other things, and only include gang related incidents? What can we refer to?

Warp
March 14, 2013, 03:26 PM
FBI studies show violent assaults often involve multiple assailants. .......................................................Did you mean often, or sometimes? I find it hard to believe that most encounters are multiple assailants. Did they leave out rape, domestic assault, and other things, and only include gang related incidents? What can we refer to?

Are often and sometimes mutually exclusive terms?

M1key
March 14, 2013, 03:27 PM
FBI studies show violent assaults often involve multiple assailants. .......................................................Did you mean often, or sometimes? I find it hard to believe that most encounters are multiple assailants. Did they leave out rape, domestic assault, and other things, and only include gang related incidents? What can we refer to?

Pretty irrelevant if it's only 1 in a hundred and you are number 100.

Good luck

M

seeker_two
March 14, 2013, 03:40 PM
I don't see how that's a better measure than, you know, whether or not the officer died.


Because the point isn't whether the officer died (b/c much of the time that happens when the officer never fires a shot). The point is how many shots it actually takes to stop a violent attack. With the advancements in ammo, I don't believe that it takes more shots to stop an attacker now than it did then. What I do think is that we believe that we have to shoot more than we may actually need to stop an attack.

If two shots from a .38Spl or .357Mag were proving enough to stop attackers back then, why would they not work now?...

Warp
March 14, 2013, 03:43 PM
If two shots from a .38Spl or .357Mag were proving enough to stop attackers back then, why would they not work now?...

Were they?

JRH6856
March 14, 2013, 04:41 PM
If two shots from a .38Spl or .357Mag were proving enough to stop attackers back then, why would they not work now?...

If they were enough then, they are probable enough now, but the more pertinent question is which two shots? The first two? The last two? Or any 2 out of however many are fired? We don't always know how many shots were fired "back then", just how many hit.

easyg
March 14, 2013, 05:02 PM
That's why all the police and military forces don't use autoloading pistols and rifles.

Oops, seems that they do!

Could that be because the probability of a properly maintained autoloader failing to chamber a round is quite low in relation to the benefits gained?
I was never a police officer, but I was a soldier for six years.
And weapon malfunctions happened all the time.
I have never attended any range session that didn't have at least a few weapons experience a malfunction.
Sometimes it was because of bad ammo.
Sometimes it was because of bad magazines.
Sometimes it was for no detectable reason whatsoever.
It's just the nature of autoloaders.

So ask yourself this....

Why does our military train troops to clear weapon malfunctions, and why does our military's chosen rifle need a "forward assist"?


Also keep in mind that the military will accept a certain amount of casualties to accomplish the mission.



Easy

Warp
March 14, 2013, 05:13 PM
why does our military's chosen rifle need a "forward assist"?


It doesn't, really, MANY people will argue. ;)

SharpsDressedMan
March 14, 2013, 06:28 PM
I have concluded from the above that everyone must carry a weapon with as many rounds as they feel they need, or plan to carry a reload or two if they don't have a weapon that includes their preferred number of rounds. :rolleyes:

glider1
March 14, 2013, 06:42 PM
The police run to the fight, I'm gonna run from it so I think 5 rounds is enuff. By the way, misses don't count no matter how many times you miss.

Warp
March 14, 2013, 06:47 PM
The police run to the fight, I'm gonna run from it so I think 5 rounds is enuff. By the way, misses don't count no matter how many times you miss.

What if the fight the police are running to is yours, and you were not able to run away from it?

I'm not saying your solution is wrong in any way, but this logic escapes me.

Kleanbore
March 14, 2013, 06:54 PM
Posted by glider1: The police run to the fight, I'm gonna run from it... Excellent thinking.

...so I think 5 rounds is enuff. You have left out something in your reasoning.

By the way, misses don't count no matter how many times you miss.But misses most certainly do add to the number of rounds fired.

Warp
March 14, 2013, 07:01 PM
Excellent thinking.

You have left out something in your reasoning.

But misses most certainly do add to the number of rounds fired.

They sure do.

And when you step back and look at the average hit rate of both LE and private citizens firing in self defense, it's about 18-20%.

David E
March 14, 2013, 07:05 PM
He fired his rifle from concealment, engaging machine gun nests prior to fending off a charge with a 1911 (7 shots, right?), but most PROBABLY had to charge his rifle (five shots, either M1917 Enfield or M1903 Springfield) more than once.

I'm sure he did. Not relevant to the pistol feat.

Possibly a six shot revolver would have been as good as a 15 shot auto to York, for the deed that he did with the pistol, as we do not know how many he engaged during the charge.

All the accounts I have read say either 7 or 8 soldiers charged. Never less than 7

I agree it's an unusual circumstance, as evidenced by our discussing it nearly a decade later.

A good argument can be made for the view: "Any gun will do....if [i]you]/i] will do." Kind of an "it's the Indian, not the arrow" perspective.

Are 6 shots enough? Maybe. Probably. It depends.

David E
March 14, 2013, 07:13 PM
The police run to the fight, I'm gonna run from it so I think 5 rounds is enuff.

If that is your fail safe plan, why carry a gun at all?

easyg
March 14, 2013, 09:42 PM
I believe that the police went to autoloaders because of the PERCEPTION that they were being "out-gunned" by the criminals...

"we got six-shooters while they got Uzis!"

But I've never seen any proof that cops are actually better off now that most of them carry autoloaders.

David E
March 14, 2013, 10:04 PM
I believe that the police went to autoloaders because of the PERCEPTION that they were being "out-gunned" by the criminals...

"we got six-shooters while they got Uzis!"

But I've never seen any proof that cops are actually better off now that most of them carry autoloaders.

Not really, as far as Uzis go. But in addition to upgrading the firepower, there was also the greater hit probability aspect. It's easier to shoot well with a semi auto and qualification scores went up.

We allowed .45's and 9mm's as well as .38's and .357's.

After switching over, we had a shooting or two where more than six shots were needed.

seeker_two
March 15, 2013, 12:47 AM
But in addition to upgrading the firepower, there was also the greater hit probability aspect. It's easier to shoot well with a semi auto and qualification scores went up.


This I can understand. Autoloader triggers are often easier to master, but DA revolver triggers can be mastered with training....something most police departments have been slashing. Doesn't really address capacity at all...unless you're talking about the first-generation S&W & Beretta DAO autos.

Maybe we're all becoming trigger snobs in our old age....

Scipio Africanus
March 15, 2013, 01:20 AM
For me, yes. But I always carry two speed loaders. And practice reloading--alot.

snakeman
March 15, 2013, 01:27 AM
I know that 1 shot from a 4" 357 loaded with 158 xtp at 30 yards will put down a deer in less than 2 seconds.

Kleanbore
March 15, 2013, 08:47 AM
Posted by snakeman: I know that 1 shot from a 4" 357 loaded with 158 xtp at 30 yards will put down a deer in less than 2 seconds.Not "will"--it's "can, with proper shot placement."

If it doesn't, you may lose the deer.

That has nothing to do with the question. The operative words were "in a self defense situation."

Success--which would mean not being seriously injured--would depend upon several things:

Avoidance, if possible
Escape, if possible
Deterrence, if it works
Effectiveness of defensive shooting, if necessary


The last one would, in turn, spend upon several things:

How soon--that is, at what distance--the defender is able to hit the target
How the attacker reacts to having been hit


Assuming adequate penetration, the latter will depend in large part upon shot placement and the number of hits, both of which will depend upon hit probability and the number of shots fired.

All were considered in JohnKSa's statistical analysis.

The distance, the number shots fired, and hit probability will depend in part upon speed of presentation and speed of shooting and upon the number of rounds in the firearm.

Not a lot to be gained by discussing deer hunting with a .357 Magnum.

glider1
March 15, 2013, 09:26 AM
Excellent thinking.

You have left out something in your reasoning.

But misses most certainly do add to the number of rounds fired.
What the police do and what we may need to do are vastly different things. If you are going to carry then you need to be able to hit what you're shooting at. Detectives carried j frames for years and they were much more likely to need that j frame than we are. To get back to the original post, in my opinion 6 rounds is plenty of fire power, actually I'm ok with 5. If I thought I was going to get into a gun battle I'd bring a pump shotgun, well no, I'd just stay home. Actually I seldom carry my j frame, I have a Kahr PM9 that's really handy and a compact 1911 that's a pretty good carry gun. I really like my Sig P229 but it's pretty bulky. Anyway, if 6 rounds won't get you out of there you aint trying hard enough.

snakeman
March 15, 2013, 10:30 AM
@ Kleanbore I'm just saying it WILL cause massive damage to vitals with proper shot placement! Jeez!

SharpsDressedMan
March 15, 2013, 11:24 AM
When the popular trend in concealed carry laws and self protection suggest that the victim of an armed or serious assault avoid, flee, and deter rather than totally STOP an attacker, I wonder what the ethical and social implications and legal liability are if the assailant goes on to harm another when a little pursuit, engagement, or detention could have stopped an armed rampage. No one likes to talk about it, but there was a day when a citizen's arrest was recognized as viable alternative to not having a cop at the scene of a crime. Too bad we have lost that. I would have a hard time accepting myself letting an armed attacker get away to hurt someone else. I really don't know if I could do that.

Warp
March 15, 2013, 11:31 AM
When the popular trend in concealed carry laws and self protection suggest that the victim of an armed or serious assault avoid, flee, and deter rather than totally STOP an attacker, I wonder what the ethical and social implications and legal liability are if the assailant goes on to harm another when a little pursuit, engagement, or detention could have stopped an armed rampage. No one likes to talk about it, but there was a day when a citizen's arrest was recognized as viable alternative to not having a cop at the scene of a crime. Too bad we have lost that. I would have a hard time accepting myself letting an armed attacker get away to hurt someone else. I really don't know if I could do that.

Pursuit?

No.

If you are worried about legal liability pursuing is, well, completely stupid.

righteoushoot
March 15, 2013, 11:36 AM
Look what playing Policeman got Mr. Zimmerman. Not to mention the teenager.

glider1
March 15, 2013, 11:47 AM
One of the most deadly gun fighters of the old west, Wild Bill Hickock, carried a pair of navy 36s which is about equal to a 380 and seldom needed to fire more than once. Granted there weren't any semi autos around but there were certainly more powerful calibers availible. What he did do is practice alot, he hit what he was shooting at. If you can do that then you don't need alot of rounds and if you can't, alot of rounds probably wont help. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with high capacity pistols, the question was, is 6 rounds enough, depends on the guy pulling the trigger I guess.

Certaindeaf
March 15, 2013, 11:52 AM
^
well put

first rule of shooting is to hit

If you enjoyed reading about "Is 6 Shots Really Enough?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!