1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is 6 Shots Really Enough?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by LouisianaGunner12, Mar 2, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Well-Known Member

    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.
  2. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

    The purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to your carbine.
  3. Haxby

    Haxby Well-Known Member

    I have never heard of a good-guy-private-citizen losing a gunfight because he ran out of ammunition.
  4. PabloJ

    PabloJ Well-Known Member

    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.
  5. orionengnr

    orionengnr Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

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

    Stress_Test Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. Armchair Warrior

    Armchair Warrior Active Member

    Guess I need to buy another shotgun. I wouldn't want to be out of lockstep with the VP.
  9. PabloJ

    PabloJ Well-Known Member

  10. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

    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.
  11. David E

    David E Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. Stress_Test

    Stress_Test Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. CajunBass

    CajunBass Well-Known Member

    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.
  14. jad0110

    jad0110 Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. jmr40

    jmr40 Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. 420Stainless

    420Stainless Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. Tcruse

    Tcruse Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. TonyDedo

    TonyDedo Well-Known Member

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

    allin Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. vito

    vito Well-Known Member

    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page