Is 6 Shots Really Enough?

[seeker_two]

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]

Originally Posted by seeker_two

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by easyg

why does our military's chosen rifle need a "forward assist"?

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

[SharpsDressedMan]

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.

[glider1]

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]

Originally Posted by glider1

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Kleanbore

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]

Originally Posted by SharpsDressedMan

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]

Originally Posted by glider1

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]

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]

Originally Posted by easyg

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]

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]

For me, yes. But I always carry two speed loaders. And practice reloading--alot.

[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.

[Kleanbore]

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]

Originally Posted by Kleanbore

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]

@ Kleanbore I'm just saying it WILL cause massive damage to vitals with proper shot placement! Jeez!

[SharpsDressedMan]

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]

Originally Posted by SharpsDressedMan

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]

Look what playing Policeman got Mr. Zimmerman. Not to mention the teenager.

[glider1]

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]

^
well put

first rule of shooting is to hit