Is 6 Shots Really Enough?

[Certaindeaf]

One "anomaly" is this picture. This man could certainly hit with a handgun. Never killed a soul but once practiced with two because if memory serves, he was threatened long ago. I forget what he actually said but the gist was he could chop a pole down all proper like fast because the bullets would "cross". good luck to you

[Elm Creek Smith]

Yes, six are enough...as long as you have at least five more in your backup.

ECS

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

[Kleanbore]

Posted by glider1: What the police do and what we may need to do are vastly different things.

Absolutely. Civilians do not make traffic stops, respond to domestic violence reports, go into bars to stop fights, try to effect arrests of fugitives, engage in drug busts, and so on.

If you are going to carry then you need to be able to hit what you're shooting at.

That goes without saying. But when the target is closing in fast and you have to draw in a hurry, that is easier said than done.

Detectives carried j frames for years and they were much more likely to need that j frame than we are.

Not necessarily. The daily duty of a detective is entirely different from that of a patrolman, and it does not include the use of a firearm. Tom Givens of Rangemaster points out that the encounters of FBI agents are much more similar in most respects to those of armed citizens than to those of unformed police officers.

[James2]

I carry a 5 shooter 44 and no reloads much of the time. I feel good with that. If I happen carry the lil 380, I may toss an extra magazine in a pocket.

Perhaps it depends more on the shooter than the gun?

Practice and train with whatever you like. One well placed shot will solve most problems.

[Certaindeaf]

So LouisianaGunner12, have you had "enough"? never know

[Kleanbore]

Posted by James2: I carry a 5 shooter 44 and no reloads much of the time. I feel good with that.

I once carried a five shot revolver most of the time. A little analysis convinced me to do otherwise.

Perhaps it depends more on the shooter than the gun?

A lot does depend upon the shooter, provided that the firearm can penetrate adequately.

Practice and train with whatever you like.

I prefer informed decisions to "likes".

One well placed shot will solve most problems.

Probably.

The trick is placing that one shot well when drawing and firing in a hurry when you are trying to avoid contact with someone moving toward you at five meters per second with the intent to kill you.

Everyone could gain a lot from some good FoF training with simunitions. Everyone could gain quite a bit from training against a mechanical moving target. When it comes to deciding upon what to carry, everyone can benefit some from watching someone else do those things.

I can find no reason to conclude that JohnKSa's analysis does not indicate strongly and convincingly against relying upon five rounds.

My concern with the five shot revolver is that I think there is a high likelihood that, should I survive the first attacker in a "Tueller" situation, I might well be left with only one shot left to deal with whatever might happen next.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by righteoushoot

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

I don't think he was playing Policeman.

But I'm sure we have had PLENTY of threads about that incident, no need to clutter up this one. I'd be happy to discuss your opinion of his actions in the appropriate thread, if you would link said thread (or PM link)

[SharpsDressedMan]

Does anyone on this forum actually know what the powers of arrest are for citizens in their own states? I do, here in Ohio. I thin ya'all ought to get familiar with what actually makes a sworn police officer different, or the same, in matter of arrest powers in one's own state.

[righteoushoot]

Originally Posted by Warp

I don't think he was playing Policeman.

But I'm sure we have had PLENTY of threads about that incident, no need to clutter up this one. I'd be happy to discuss your opinion of his actions in the appropriate thread, if you would link said thread (or PM link)

My post was in context of the immediately prior posts about pursuit. It was what we refer to in conversational circles as an example. Sorry if I touched a nerve there. I thought it was an important point to make. Don't push things, or act differently, or go places you otherwise would not because you have 5, 6, 7 or 15 to back you up. (Or if you do, make sure you have a presence about you.)

Good luck with your duties.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by righteoushoot

My post was in context of the immediately prior posts about pursuit. It was what we refer to in conversational circles as an example. Sorry if I touched a nerve there. I thought it was an important point to make. Don't push things, or act differently, or go places you otherwise would not because you have 5, 6, 7 or 15 to back you up. (Or if you do, make sure you have a presence about you.)

Good luck with your duties.

Perhaps you can help me understand why your opinion is that Zimmerman did something only because he was armed, and why he wouldn't/shouldn't have done it if he were not armed?

[Certaindeaf]

Originally Posted by SharpsDressedMan

Does anyone on this forum actually know what the powers of arrest are for citizens in their own states? I do, here in Ohio. I thin ya'all ought to get familiar with what actually makes a sworn police officer different, or the same, in matter of arrest powers in one's own state.

Zero. If you shoot someone in the back or yada, the union won't help you.

[righteoushoot]

Originally Posted by Warp

Perhaps you can help me understand why your opinion is that Zimmerman did something only because he was armed, and why he wouldn't/shouldn't have done it if he were not armed?

My intent was not to highjack the thread. I agree with you on that. I detest clutter.

[C0untZer0]

Police officers are civilians.

the only police that aren't civilians are MPs.

[Certaindeaf]

We know how to count. They tried to off Hitler like three times before he medicated himself with one.
The list is actually endless when it comes to "if's".
Only you can make those "ifs" a certainty. Learn to call your shots.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by C0untZer0: Police officers are civilians.

the only police that aren't civilians are MPs.

We use this definition from Marriam-Webster: "One not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force."

[easyg]

It seems to boil down to which you fear most:

(A) Needing more than six rounds to stop the threat.

Or

(B) A greater chance of a malfunction that will temporarily stop your handgun from working (failure to eject, failure to feed, hard primer, dud round, all of which can stop an otherwise perfectly functioning autoloader).


Personally, I'm honest enough with myself to know that I don't practice failure drills often enough.
And from what I've seen at the ranges I frequent, very few shooters practice failure drills at all.
They aim, squeeze, BANG, squeeze, BANG, squeeze, ....nothing, puzzled expression, slowly lower the pistol and lock the slide back and try to determine what's wrong.
I can't recall the last time I saw someone instantly spring in to a malfunction drill...tap, rack, or rip the magazine out, rack, rack, rack, reinsert the magazine, rack...
I've seen it at competitions, but most shooters don't compete.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by easyg

It seems to boil down to which you fear most:

(A) Needing more than six rounds to stop the threat.

Or

(B) A greater chance of a malfunction that will temporarily stop your handgun from working (failure to eject, failure to feed, hard primer, dud round, all of which can stop an otherwise perfectly functioning autoloader).


Personally, I'm honest enough with myself to know that I don't practice failure drills often enough.
And from what I've seen at the ranges I frequent, very few shooters practice failure drills at all.
They aim, squeeze, BANG, squeeze, BANG, squeeze, ....nothing, puzzled expression, slowly lower the pistol and lock the slide back and try to determine what's wrong.
I can't recall the last time I saw someone instantly spring in to a malfunction drill...tap, rack, or rip the magazine out, rack, rack, rack, reinsert the magazine, rack...
I've seen it at competitions, but most shooters don't compete.

There's a damned if you do, damned if you don't in effect when a firearm malfunctions unexpectedly. If you go through the drill to get it running again you may never know exactly how/why it malfunctioned, because you just 'destroyed' a lot of your evidence.

You also have to worry about the possibility of a squib round. Perhaps with ear protection on, and surrounded by other shooters, you didn't hear that little pop that indicated the bullet may still be in the barrel, for example.

[JohnKSa]

If you are going to carry then you need to be able to hit what you're shooting at.

If, by this, you mean that we should be competent (in terms of safety, marksmanship & tactics) to use the firearm we carry for self-defense, I heartily agree.

If, however, you mean that with enough practice a person who carries a firearm for self-defense can attain a goal of never missing, you are deluding yourself and anyone else you may manage to convince to adopt this theory.

Even very good marksmen miss their targets. Even when shooting on the range and under no appreciable pressure. The idea that every single shot in a self-defense firearm will hit its mark in a real-world shooting is wildly unrealistic.

...Wild Bill Hickock, carried a pair of navy 36s...

Which, of course, means Mr. Hickok clearly felt 6 wasn't enough. This was a man who was widely recognized as being one of the best marksmen of his time, a time, by the way, when he knew there was no chance of being confronted by multiple opponents with high-capacity semi-automatics. Yet he still felt that having more than 6 on tap made good sense.

[David E]

Originally Posted by James2

I carry a 5 shooter 44 and no reloads much of the time. I feel good with that.

No disrespect, but how you "feel" about your choice matters not one whit.

If I happen carry the lil 380, I may toss an extra magazine in a pocket.

Perhaps it depends more on the shooter than the gun?

While I agree with that premise, it must be tempered with wisdom and ability. Someone choosing an Astra Cub in .22 Short chamber empty, hammer down, safety-on wrapped up in a handkerchief in their front pocket may "feel comfortable" with their choice and mode of carry, but they are a fool, even if highly skilled once the gun is ready to shoot. Likewise, the guy that carries a (insert favorite choice here) but cannot hit a barn from the inside is also a fool.

Defining a level of "adequate" is diffucult enough, but defining a level of "above average" isn't easily agreed upon, but I submit the following:

- Gun carried per your usual way
- Draw on signal, (starting hands at sides)
- Fire 5 shots on a sheet of typing paper - at 5 yds
- in 3 seconds

qualifies as above average.

[Warp]

That would certainly be above the average.

[the iron horse]

I saw a TV show a few years ago. I think it was
called Warriors.

It pitted different fighting warriors from history against each other
and then used a computer program to dertermine who would win
in a confrontation.

In the show that pitted Al Capone's Chicago gangsters against
the Jesse James gang.

Even though the Chicago gang had Thompson Machine guns, auto pistols,
the computer chose Jesse's gang as the winners.

The reason: Those 19th century guys were marksmen. They did'nt spray
or shoot randomly, they aimed.

[tomrkba]

Defining a level of "adequate" is diffucult enough, but defining a level of "above average" isn't easily agreed upon, but I submit the following:

- Gun carried per your usual way
- Draw on signal, (starting hands at sides)
- Fire 5 shots on a sheet of typing paper - at 5 yds
- in 3 seconds

qualifies as above average.

It is only valid if both target and shooter are moving laterally since both sides almost always move while fighting (worst case without armor, cover or noncombatants to manage and/or avoid shooting).

[David E]

Originally Posted by tomrkba

While both target and shooter are moving laterally.

And yet again, you introduce variables that have nothing whatsoever to do with defining a basic range drill to establish skill level.

[tomrkba]

Once again, people confuse target shooting skills with gunfighting skills. The static test proposed merely demonstrates the shooter's ability to safely handle a gun from the holster. The test I proposed demonstrates the basic level of gunfighting. The static shooting does nothing to evaluate the shooter's gunfighting skills.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by tomrkba

Once again, people confuse target shooting skills with gunfighting skills. The static test proposed merely demonstrates the shooter's ability to safely handle a gun from the holster. The test I proposed demonstrates the basic level of gunfighting. The static shooting does nothing to evaluate the shooter's gunfighting skills.

I strongly disagree.

When you put something on the clock, AND have an accuracy requirement, it tests a LOT more than the ability to do it "safely".

In fact, I say that the drill in question does NOT test your ability to do it safely. Unless you were to determine that it was done safely based merely on the fact that the shooter did not shoot themselves or another in the process.

Quickly drawing your concealed carry gun from concealment and rapidly placing shots on target is a key ability for defending yourself from attack using your concealed carry gun. No, it is not a stand alone be all end all of drills. Yes, it's great if you can work other aspects into you training, and into your measurement of your progress. But to claim that drawing from concealment and putting 5 rounds on target, from the beep, in 3 seconds, does nothing to measure your ability is laughable.