Why so many rounds?

Kano383 · Jan 3, 2017

To get back to the original question... The essence of the post was not the number of rounds in the magazine per se, even though that was the opening, but more on what is done with these rounds - and the assessment of the real threat faced in day-to-day life.

"... watching videos of encounters where one or the other shooter empties fifteen rounds in one-and-a-half second in the general direction of whatever bothers him at the moment, I always think “Why the excitement, why not aim?”.

Could it be because the high capacity magazines have led people to rely on quantity instead of quality? Was it like that when the usual load was six in a wheelgun or seven in a 1911?"

Basically, if you carry a 30 rounds mag, and empty 29 of them when 2 or 3 well aimed rounds would have done the job, you've just rendered your firearm as useful as a two-shots derringer after the first round. So at this point, you'd have been best served with a two-shots derringer that you mastered so skillfully that you could pull a brain shot with your first round everytime... Between these two points lies a balance that is for everyone to find according to his circumstances.

But the point remains, better training and mental preparation should make one able to face a threat with the confidence that he has the skills to make each round count, because this is what will save his bacon - not the sheer weight of lead transferred into the lard of an opponent.

Kano383 · Jan 3, 2017

To the moderator... The previous post uploaded three times, technological hiccup... could you please remove this one (152) and the next one? Can't find a "Delete post" button... Thanks!

Kano383 · Jan 3, 2017

Forsaken · Jan 3, 2017

Kano383 said:
Why so many rounds in the magazine?.

same reason as to why cars can go 150mph when the speed limit is 75mph? just because my car can go 150mph doesn't mean i'm going to use it all the time, BUT it's good to know i can use it if i ever need it

17 rounds are not many, they are today' standard for semi-auto pistols. It's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Jim Watson · Jan 3, 2017

Kano383 said:
Could it be because the high capacity magazines have led people to rely on quantity instead of quality? Was it like that when the usual load was six in a wheelgun or seven in a 1911?"

It has been a long time since M. Ayoob reported on case studies that the optimum loadout for police was a typical single stack auto. That 7-10 rounds were better than six, but a dozen or more seemed to lead to undisciplined fire.

Kano383 · Jan 3, 2017

Just found this:

http://tacticalanatomy.com/

"Tactical Anatomy is an innovative approach to marksmanship that has begun to revolutionize law enforcement firearms training. Developed over years with input from the police firearms training community, Tactical Anatomy training is primarily designed to enable police firearms instructors to teach anatomically effective marksmanship skills to recruits, SWAT teams, and patrol officers. But we recognize that lawfully armed citizens of all stripes have the right to access this training, so we offer civilian classes as well."

"We train law enforcement officers in the critical anatomic zones of the human body, and how to visualize these vital zones in 3 dimensions from any angle of presentation. Then we teach them how to bridge the gap between 2-dimensional range firearms competency and the 3-dimensional anatomy of the human body."

The mind boggles. You mean, until 2000-something, nobody had the idea that cops needed to know anatomy?????

Nobody figured out than when hunting a dangerous predator, you need an intimate knowledge of its inner workings? That you absolutely need to be able to "see" through the target in 3D so as to know exactly what to aim for?

Unbelievable. I never even imagined something like that.

Sorry for aking stupid questions at the beginning of the thread, now I understand why people pump lead "in the middle".

You see, everybody I know who deals with dangerous critters has entire books on anatomy, shot placement, etc. He spends time with old hands showing him what to do, where exactly to shoot, whatifs and whatnots. He does countless postmortems, checking what happens inside when a bullet hits, he cuts critters open to understand where everything is inside in relation to what you see outside, including brain and spine and big joints. He talks endlessly with other professionals about what they have learned, so he does not need to learn it the hard way. He goes over every colleague's death in action (because these are regular occurences), analyzing what happened, learning to avoid mistakes in the future.

So today I'm really flabbergasted... Most people going after hardened criminals do not have the level of armed proficiency and basic knowledge required from a twenty-something apprentice buffalo hunter?

I withdraw my questions now.

45_auto · Jan 3, 2017

kano383 said:
You see, everybody I know who deals with dangerous critters has entire books on anatomy, shot placement, etc.

It would appear that you know very few people who deal with dangerous critters.

In the real world, in any profession (doctors, engineers, professional hunters, soldiers, mechanics, scientists, nurses, accountants, carpenters, etc, etc, etc), you will find that there are a few at the very top (maybe 10%?) that demonstrate the dedication that you describe. You'll find that the vast majority do enough to get by, while the bottom 10% or so of incompetents manage to make most of the headlines.

Kano383 · Jan 3, 2017

45_auto said:
It would appear that you know very few people who deal with dangerous critters.

In the real world, in any profession (doctors, engineers, professional hunters, soldiers, mechanics, scientists, nurses, accountants, carpenters, etc, etc, etc), you will find that there are a few at the very top (maybe 10%?) that demonstrate the dedication that you describe. You'll find that the vast majority do enough to get by, while the bottom 10% or so of incompetents manage to make most of the headlines.

I know quite a number of professional hunters and guides here in Africa. A good portion of them from Zimbabwe, where the standards for a PH licence are very stringent, and include a 2 years apprenticeship, a long string of exams on all sorts of topics going from ballistics to flora, fauna, first aid, firearms handling, etc. These are the standards to which other PHs are compared.

All the PHs I've known, from the most professional to the sloppiest, had a good understanding of anatomy and of the shots to be taken. I'm sure that there are incompetents in the profession at large (some countries have a more relaxed approach to the licence thing) but I guarantee you that incompetence won't keep you running after Cape buffalo, elephant, leopard or other things for long. Incompetence will get you - or worse, your client - killed.

So, even if a good part of the LEOs are not really interested in firearms and shooting proficiency, I still do not understand how it is possible that until recent there were not even courses of "tactical anatomy" for the professionals. At least the top 10% you mention would have attended!

Kendal Black · Jan 3, 2017

Kano383 said:
So, even if a good part of the LEOs are not really interested in firearms and shooting proficiency, I still do not understand how it is possible that until recent there were not even courses of "tactical anatomy" for the professionals.

Typically, 'tactical anatomy' in the USA has only been taught via the scoring rings on the targets.

Browning · Jan 3, 2017

Kano383 said:
To get back to the original question... The essence of the post was not the number of rounds in the magazine per se, even though that was the opening, but more on what is done with these rounds - and the assessment of the real threat faced in day-to-day life.

"... watching videos of encounters where one or the other shooter empties fifteen rounds in one-and-a-half second in the general direction of whatever bothers him at the moment, I always think “Why the excitement, why not aim?”.

Because of 2 main reasons.
1. Difficulty in hitting the target :

It's difficult to hit moving targets who are also shooting at you, getting behind cover and exposing a small portion of their body when you're also getting off the 'X' and moving and seeking cover yourself.

It's incredibly difficult, especially with a pistol. If you don't think so I challenge you to hit an appropriate range and try hitting Texas stars, Whirley's and Swingers while also moving.

The hit rate for most gunfights hovers somewhere around 30%. In many areas civilians exceed the performance of police, but that's still the general hit percentage and most of it is because of movement.

What's needed is more training, not less the way some are suggesting.

2. Increase in number of assailants, CNS hits and bullet effectiveness:

It's even more difficult when there is more than one attacker to deal with and that when they are hit the gunshot often isn't immediately effective. Many criminals who are gunshot wound victims who cease fighting aren't doing so because they're physically unable to continue fighting because it's a CNS hit (brain or spinal cord), it's more of a surrender where they don't want to chance further injury and they believe that surrender increases their chance of survival by also being able to get medical attention.

The vast majority of the gunshot wound patients that I've gotten were still completely capable of fighting. They were alert to person, place, time and event, they were completely capable of reacting to stimuli and almost all were capable of being able to move their body.

Sometimes it was painful to be able to do so, but they could do it.

Could it be because the high capacity magazines have led people to rely on quantity instead of quality? Was it like that when the usual load was six in a wheelgun or seven in a 1911?"

No, it's more like gunfighting experienced a renaissance. The pistols changed, the capacity increased, the ammunition became more effective, sometimes the number of assailants increased, then you have innocents smack in the middle that are needing to be avoided as well as having much better training (if it's taken advantage of).

That doesn't sound like any hunt I've ever been on. Even in dangerous game hunts the Cape Buffalo or the Lion isn't capable of injuring hunters without physically touching the hunters through the use of projectile weapons.

The only thing that dangerous game hunting has in common with a gunfight is that both are risking injury or death and that both are having to try and hit a target that can move with a firearm.

That's it.

There are far more differences between dangerous game hunting and a gunfight. The hunter is choosing to go on the hunt, the hunter has far more of an advantage in the form of a large caliber multi-shot projectile weapon vs teeth and claws, back-up in the form of a professional hunter similarly armed and the element of surprise in the form of an ambush where they're shooting at a target that isn't moving. Not to mention the fact that humans are more intelligent than animals and our capacity to anticipate events and potential needs and to invent and use machinery to our advantage greatly exceeds that of any animal.

Comparing dangerous game hunting and a gunfight is like comparing an team of oxen and a covered wagon and a 747 and saying that they're similar because they're both forms of transportation.

But the point remains, better training and mental preparation should make one able to face a threat with the confidence that he has the skills to make each round count, because this is what will save his bacon - not the sheer weight of lead transferred into the lard of an opponent.

I'll agree with that for the most part, especially in regards to the training. The additional ammunition capacity certainly doesn't hurt and many times is life saving.

Deaf Smith · Jan 3, 2017

Kano383 said:
I know quite a number of professional hunters and guides here in Africa. A good portion of them from Zimbabwe, where the standards for a PH licence are very stringent, and include a 2 years apprenticeship, a long string of exams on all sorts of topics going from ballistics to flora, fauna, first aid, firearms handling, etc. These are the standards to which other PHs are compared.

All the PHs I've known, from the most professional to the sloppiest, had a good understanding of anatomy and of the shots to be taken. I'm sure that there are incompetents in the profession at large (some countries have a more relaxed approach to the licence thing) but I guarantee you that incompetence won't keep you running after Cape buffalo, elephant, leopard or other things for long. Incompetence will get you - or worse, your client - killed.

So, even if a good part of the LEOs are not really interested in firearms and shooting proficiency, I still do not understand how it is possible that until recent there were not even courses of "tactical anatomy" for the professionals. At least the top 10% you mention would have attended!

You know, that kind of reminds me. Peter Capstick (deceased now), who was a PI in Africa and wrote many books, used a P-35 9mm HP for his backup when going after wounded Lions and Leopards. Strange, isn't it, he didn't worry about if he carried too many rounds for his pistol. He also used a shotgun for the main weapon for wounded Lions and Leopards.

Just kind of... FYI.

Deaf

JohnKSa · Jan 3, 2017

I know quite a number of professional hunters and guides here in Africa.

My guess would be that professional hunters and guides are not only in the top 10%, they're probably in the top 10% of the top 1%.

So, even if a good part of the LEOs are not really interested in firearms and shooting proficiency, I still do not understand how it is possible that until recent there were not even courses of "tactical anatomy" for the professionals. At least the top 10% you mention would have attended!

For every person who believes that police need better training in weapons and tactics there are a number of them that believe police should be trained to help people, not to become expert killers. It's just the reality of the world we live in.

scaatylobo · Jan 3, 2017

JohnKSa said:
My guess would be that professional hunters and guides are not only in the top 10%, they're probably in the top 10% of the top 1%.For every person who believes that police need better training in weapons and tactics there are a number of them that believe police should be trained to help people, not to become expert killers. It's just the reality of the world we live in.

As a former LEO,and instructor in the use of force and firearms ,as well as defensive tactics = I totally disagree.

IF you "want help" call a Dr, or a shrink or any of the THOUSANDS of those that dedicate their lives to "helping" unfortunates.

The POLICE are called to stop attacks and violence,in general.

And I defy you to show me any actual numbers that prove your statement " For every person who believes that police need better training in weapons and tactics there are a number of them that believe police should be trained to help people, not to become expert killers ".

MOST officers are not at all interested in shooting ---- at all !.

Many would not carry a gun if not forced to.

Did you ever notice the total lack of police officers that compete in shooting events.

There are over 40 THOUSAND police officers in NYC alone,what percentage shoot in competition ?.

Such a small number that it cannot be measured.

And NO,there are no classes other than the actual range that teach where or how to shoot.

And after all the HORRIBLE PRESS, most officers are risking their lives to not shoot,and if they do shoot ---- they don't shoot enough rounds to stop really DANGEROUS game .

Game that shoots back and really has no fear of who they shoot or why,unlike the officers that will REALLY account for every single round sent downrange..

Please ,if you doubt any of the above ------ TAKE THE JOB,and show me .

Don't tell me,please as I have been there and done it AND have lots of scars to prove it.

JohnKSa · Jan 3, 2017

I totally disagree.

Perhaps you disagree, but you don't disagree with me. I believe that if police are going to be called upon to resolve violent encounters they should be thoroughly trained so that they can do it rapidly and efficiently and with minimal risk to themselves.

The fact that I understand the reality that most people/police aren't interested in training police in anatomy so they can aim for more lethal/effective parts of the body doesn't mean I agree with the majority.

MOST officers are not at all interested in shooting ---- at all !

I believe that. It goes along perfectly with what I said about there being more people who don't think police should be trained to be "effective killers" than believe that they need more training. As you say, most officers aren't interested in shooting at all--certainly not interested in learning anatomy so that they can pick their targets more precisely.

And I defy you to show me any actual numbers that prove your statement...

I don't understand why you want me to provide numbers when your statements agree with mine.

Kendal Black · Jan 3, 2017

I would certainly rather be helped by a cop than shot at, and I think that echoes the sentiments of the officers as well. Once you face up to the fact that not everyone out there is of the same mind, it merely becomes a question of whether you want your cops efficient or not if they have to shoot.

I've seen it too, cops who are just not gun guys, shoot only enough to qualify and whose fastest draw is on the radio or cell phone. I think their hearts are right and their instincts too, but I worry sometimes about their safety.

zaitcev · Jan 3, 2017

usp9 said:
I'm confident my 6+1 pocket gun would suffice as a game changer in 99% of realistic potential threats.

Not in our 'hood. Gangbangaz come in 4s around these parts. 3 rounds each equals 12 you need even before you fight through to your rifle.

Deaf Smith · Jan 4, 2017

Do you guys really think shooting scores on the range at qualification time equal hits in a gun fight? If so you are just naive.

There is just so much more affecting a person's ability to stop opponents in a fight than putting bullet holes in a piece of paper. To paraphrase Bruce Lee, 'paper targets don't hit back.'

As some here have suggested, go become a cop and after a few years come back and tell us if you still want just six shots in your gun. Bet your attitude changes once you leave your cosy warm keyboard.

For, you see, no one in combat ever wished for less ammo or a smaller gun.

Deaf

JohnBiltz · Jan 4, 2017

Deaf Smith said:
Do you guys really think shooting scores on the range at qualification time equal hits in a gun fight? If so you are just naive.

There is just so much more affecting a person's ability to stop opponents in a fight than putting bullet holes in a piece of paper. To paraphrase Bruce Lee, 'paper targets don't hit back.'

As some here have suggested, go become a cop and after a few years come back and tell us if you still want just six shots in your gun. Bet your attitude changes once you leave your cosy warm keyboard.

For, you see, no one in combat ever wished for less ammo or a smaller gun.

Deaf

I have seen several retired ex-cops talking about carrying a snub revolver now.

DT Guy · Jan 4, 2017

JohnBiltz said:
I have seen several retired ex-cops talking about carrying a snub revolver now.

Which brings us back to the previous post by Scaatylobo: "MOST officers are not at all interested in shooting ---- at all !.

Many would not carry a gun if not forced to."

Being an ex-cop, I have to admit that cops are, in general, the LAST place I would go for firearms or tactical advice. There are certainly exceptions, but the average police officer CARRIES a gun all day and trains with it no more than absolutely required by their department.

Larry

Browning · Jan 4, 2017

Deaf Smith said:
Do you guys really think shooting scores on the range at qualification time equal hits in a gun fight? If so you are just naive.

There is just so much more affecting a person's ability to stop opponents in a fight than putting bullet holes in a piece of paper. To paraphrase Bruce Lee, 'paper targets don't hit back.

As some here have suggested, go become a cop and after a few years come back and tell us if you still want just six shots in your gun. Bet your attitude changes once you leave your cosy warm keyboard.

For, you see, no one in combat ever wished for less ammo or a smaller gun. - Deaf

I'm not sure if you were speaking to me or not over my suggestion that if people believe that hitting a moving target is easy while they're moving themselves that they should try going to an appropriate range and try for themselves on steel, but since I'm the only guy on page seven suggesting that they try I'll respond just in case.

1. My take on it has always been that more rounds is better. That's been my point for the entire thread.
2. The most affordable way of trying to hit moving targets with a pistol are moving plates. They also give you immediate feedback as to whether you hit them or not. The most realistic of all is simunitions, but just because I am that doesn't mean that most are willing to spend $500 or thereabouts for a two day class. Short of going and engaging in a gratuitous gunfight those two are going to be the most realistic and the best we've got. People want to perform well in front of others, that's just the way we are. Neither are completely the same as an actual gunfight though, to suggest that they are would be kind of stupid.
3. A shooter might feel feel some stress while shooting plates in front of friends, shooting in a match or going through a simunitions course it's not going to duplicate the adrenaline dump that the real thing gives. Besides the real thing nothing is.

However at least those activities induce some stress and as a result provide a form of stress inoculation the more it's performed, all three activities are better than banging away on paper by themselves.
4. Most cops are not engaging in shootouts. Although they might draw their gun to cover suspects and go hands on with suspects dozens upon dozens of times, some go an entire career without ever firing their gun. On the flip-side some are experienced gunfighters. Much depends on what city they work and what type of unit they work in (patrol, swat, robbery/homicide, vice, meter-maid, armorer, accident investigation etc). For some of the higher risk work that brings with it the increased likelihood of getting into situations that might go sideways it takes seniority to get there, so just going and joining a department for a few years is unlikely to do it.

JohnBiltz · Jan 4, 2017

Deaf Smith said:
Do you guys really think shooting scores on the range at qualification time equal hits in a gun fight? If so you are just naive.

There is just so much more affecting a person's ability to stop opponents in a fight than putting bullet holes in a piece of paper. To paraphrase Bruce Lee, 'paper targets don't hit back.'

As some here have suggested, go become a cop and after a few years come back and tell us if you still want just six shots in your gun. Bet your attitude changes once you leave your cosy warm keyboard.

For, you see, no one in combat ever wished for less ammo or a smaller gun.

Deaf

I have a lesson today and I'm going to shoot the Sheriff's department qualification so I think I will wait to see how I do before answering if I think it means anything.

X-Rap · Jan 4, 2017

There is also a retired LEO who frequently posts that claims to have not carried since retirement if I'm not mistaken so what cops do as individuals varies as much as the rest of us.

GRIZ22 · Jan 4, 2017

"Tactical Anatomy" has been taught for years. Shooting instructors. civilian, military, or police, have taught to shoot center mass for some time. The torso contains lots of vital organs, blood vessels, and the spine. You stand a better chance of hitting something vital by taking a torso shot.

True a shot to the medulla oblongata will end the fight. The problem is trying to hit a bobbing and weaving target that is shooting back at you.

Center mass, usually the largest target available, is a good bet. I refined this a bit and taught to shoot at the largest target available. If your opponent is not using cover properly that largest target might be a foot, knee, or elbow. Don't wait for the torso or head to be exposed. Shoot whatever target you have.

There are plenty of incidents where someone took several lethal hits and stayed in the fight for some time. Mutiple hits mean multiple chances to hit something vital.

Gun games are good as they get you out to shoot. They are bad as they really don't teach good tactics. Pepper poppers are one example. You take that shot, the pepper popper starts going down, and you move on to next target. That doesn't mean in real life the BG is out of the fight.

When I trained shooters with pepper poppers I would tell them to keep shooting at it until it was down. Even the worst shooters would hit it 2 or 3 times. Better shooters would hit it 4 or 5 times. Some more. Each shot increases your chance of hitting something vital.

Kano383 · Jan 4, 2017

First shot. We tracked him half a mile, and he stood up when he saw us. Too sick to do much more, but he stood up.

If that was a friendly neighborhood honor student full of PCP, he wouldn't go half a mile, but how many rounds will he have the time to pump into your own bits and pieces?

One doesn't always have the right choice of target available, but if you do have... Don't waste time on the boiler. Just my humble opinion.

fastbolt · Jan 4, 2017

Perennial topic. Never arrives at a definitive "answer" that satisfies anyone.

When I used to carry an issued service revolver I wasn't overly concerned about being "under equipped" when it came to handgun "capacity".

One day they took my issued .357 Magnum revolver and told me to carry one of the latest & greatest of the hi-cap WonderNines (newly released 5903). I suddenly found myself carrying upwards of a whole box of ammunition on my person (43 rounds, and then 46 rounds when the 15-rd mags were available).

I became a firearms instructor just after I'd been issued that 5903. Over the ensuing years I carried a variety of different issued and personally-owned pistols, and eventually found myself returning to carrying a 5-shot snub revolver off-duty (and buying several more of them).

As an instructor, the more I focused on improving my skillset and shooting abilities, the less I thought about "capacity", for the sake of capacity. I actually ended my full-time career choosing to carry a 7+1 compact .45 pistol, instead of some larger capacity options.

Also as an instructor, whenever one of our folks would ask me my opinion about them buying a higher capacity off-duty weapons, or changing from one caliber to another (options being 9, .40 & .45), which would also change magazine capacities, I tried to refrain from making specific recommendations. Instead, I'd offer to take the person downrange and let them try some representatives samples of whatever it was that might be interesting them (if one of the other instructors or myself owned something they were thinking about, or if we had one in the training inventory).

Rather than approach it as a "capacity" or caliber issue (or a make/model issue), I'd have them do some increasingly demanding drills and let them see for themselves whether they felt making the change they had in mind was likely to be a benefit to them. Just having more rounds, or a larger caliber, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a "better thing", not if they can't use it in a safe and confident manner, running it controllably, accurately and effectively. If it meant they were going to have to do some additional work to meet the demands of using the new weapon/caliber they were considering, were they willing to put in that time and effort? If having more rounds (or a harder recoiling caliber) might mean more misses, maybe they might be better served putting some more effort into their skillset development and abilities with their rpesent weapon(s)?

Nowadays, my retirement CCW choices are typically one or another of my several 5-shot snubs, or one of my pair of LCP's. Occasionally, if my daily risk assessment seems to make it prudent to have a larger belt gun (or I just feel like belting one of them on again), I may carry one of my 9's, .40's or .45's. The largest magazine capacity of any of the many handguns I own is only 12 rounds.

Those handguns all still continued to get a fair amount of range time in the years since I'd retired from my full-time status, as up until recently I'd continued performing my LE firearms instructor & armorer responsibilities as a reserve. Now, I've recently decided to resign from that position and maybe pursue some writing interests (and enjoy other activities, travel, etc). I still have access to my former agency's range (and ammo inventory

), and I'm going to join another county's peace officer's association that operates a private range for its members (and is a lot closer than my former agency's range), so I'll continue to try to keep my skills from rusting away.

Even so, "capacity" of my retirement weapons isn't one of the things that keeps me awake at night. While I've sometimes taken one of my G26's, my G27 or my 4013TSW along on road trips as LEOSA weapons, more often than not it's been one of my 5-shot snubs, and even one of my LCP's, that see use in that role.

Why so many rounds?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Administrator

Member

Administrator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads