Why so many rounds?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 would imagine nobody who every survived a gunfight ever said "I wish I would have carried less ammunition that day."
Everybody is going to react differently, everyone is going to have a bad day, everyone is going to have a variable in their skill set day to day and occasion to occasion.
I would rather err to carrying an extra pound of ammunition than to have a hundred grains or so of it removed from my body in surgery.
 
My other point on this subject [ and I do see it as part of the OP's start ].

WHAT DO YOU REALLY CARRY ?.

AND = do you have,and TRAIN for a worst case scenario.

I carry a Glock 23 and spare magazines [ plural ].Often a BUG and blade,flashlight etc.

My "worst case scenario" is a mall,store,theater,Mumbai attack.

I will be outgunned,and I will sure as hell try to get out a back door.

BUT if wife is with me,or I just cannot leave,I do not want to stop fighting due to a 5 shot limit.

I train ,and yes shoot for that scenario.

Paranoid,or not.

I don't care how you feel about my loadout,that is how "I roll".AND why.

IF you all don't have a cause,reason etc - then enjoy your snubby's = I love mine as a BUG and pocket gun in winter as the coat is done up and the primary in not reachable.

Hope you see my point,if not ----- who cares :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

btw, anyone that actually loses sleep over any of this subject REALLY needs help.
 
Do you guys really think shooting scores on the range at qualification time equal hits in a gun fight?
No, but the converse is true. A person who scores really well on a square range qualification can still be a lousy gunfighter, but someone who can't shoot even under the controlled circumstances of qualification certainly won't develop amazing marksmanship/tactical skills when someone starts shooting at them.
 
No, but the converse is true. A person who scores really well on a square range qualification can still be a lousy gunfighter, but someone who can't shoot even under the controlled circumstances of qualification certainly won't develop amazing marksmanship/tactical skills when someone starts shooting at them.

FWIW, NYPD keeps the best stats on police gunfights. Long ago they determined there is no correlation between how good somebody does in qualifications and how well they do in a gunfight.

Gunfighting is like 95% mental and 5% marksmanship.
 
Are you saying that someone who can't shoot well when faced with only paper targets might still be a good gunfighter?

I can see how a good shooter might still be a lousy gunfighter, but I'm struggling with the idea of how someone who can't shoot could make a good gunfighter...

I get that there's a huge mental component to gunfighting but I'm not sure how someone's state of mind can help them hit targets under pressure when they can't do it under ideal conditions.
 
Are you saying that someone who can't shoot well when faced with only paper targets might still be a good gunfighter?

I can see how a good shooter might still be a lousy gunfighter, but I'm struggling with the idea of how someone who can't shoot could make a good gunfighter...

I get that there's a huge mental component to gunfighting but I'm not sure how someone's state of mind can help them hit targets under pressure when they can't do it under ideal conditions.

Someone who can consistently shoot 2-3 inches at 25 yards on paper will leave in the dust someone who just manages to stay within one foot at the same distance. On paper.

Bring that to 7-10 feet in a gunfight, if the Top Gun guy loses his nerves and shoots everywhere except in the right spot, and the lousy shot keeps his acts together and still produces his one foot accuracy, all of a sudden his group becomes less than a couple of inches, because the BG is at ten feet, not twenty five yards.

End of the BG, and paper targets don't mean squat...
 
It goes like this folks.

Master class shooters TEND to do better in gun fights. Jim Cirillo, of NYPD stake out squad fame, in his book on gun fighting gave a list of qualities needed to be in such a unit that had lots of gunfights. Being an avid shoting competitor was one of them as well as being a hunter and reloader. Nother words one very familiar with guns, stalking, hitting moving targets, and killing things.

A shooting competitor, BTW, is not just one who qualifies well on the square range. And note I said 'tend' to do better. Lots more to gunfighting than just that.

Deaf
 
deaf smith said:
For, you see, no one in combat ever wished for less ammo or a smaller gun.

Sgt Maynard Smith got the Medal of Honor for disagreeing with you. He apparently had such a desire for less ammo that he commenced throwing it overboard.

From Maynard Smith Medal of Honor citation:

The aircraft was hit several times by antiaircraft fire and cannon shells of the fighter aircraft, 2 of the crew were seriously wounded, the aircraft's oxygen system shot out, and several vital control cables severed when intense fires were ignited simultaneously in the radio compartment and waist sections.....The escaping oxygen fanned the fire to such intense heat that the ammunition in the radio compartment began to explode, the radio, gun mount, and camera were melted, and the compartment completely gutted. Sgt. Smith threw the exploding ammunition overboard, fought the fire until all the firefighting aids were exhausted, manned the workable guns until the enemy fighters were driven away, further administered first aid to his wounded comrade, and then by wrapping himself in protecting cloth, completely extinguished the fire by hand.
 
"manned the workable guns" is an important line in that citation if you are trying to infer his attitude about extra ammunition.
 
Sgt Maynard Smith got the Medal of Honor for disagreeing with you. He apparently had such a desire for less ammo that he commenced throwing it overboard.

From Maynard Smith Medal of Honor citation:
There is the exception that proves the rule!

Deaf
 
Are you saying that someone who can't shoot well when faced with only paper targets might still be a good gunfighter?

I can see how a good shooter might still be a lousy gunfighter, but I'm struggling with the idea of how someone who can't shoot could make a good gunfighter...

I get that there's a huge mental component to gunfighting but I'm not sure how someone's state of mind can help them hit targets under pressure when they can't do it under ideal conditions.

See Kano383's post after yours.

You can argue all your want but NYPD's statistics tell the facts. Go back to my earlier post in this thread where I relate a NYPD Detective who always qualified expert shot 5 times at a threat and hit him once...at a range of 6 feet.

Fighters are not always the best shots. I learned this in SE Asia back in 1968. Even those guys who don't shoot that good at the range find the ability to focus on the task on hand.

Like I said before, having been there done that, gunfighting is 95% mental and 5% skill and hardware.
 
Why so many rounds in the magazine? I’m not talking of SWAT team members or LEOs who may find themselves at anytime under fire from multiple armed ne’er-do-good, but of the guns used as daily ballast in the waistband by Joe-you-and-me.

My thoughts are that for the realistic threat faced by the vast majority of us, non-professionally involved in violent action, there are more disadvantages than advantages to the trend of more-is-better.

High capacity magazines are heavy, and add a lot of bulk to handguns’ grips. So much so that many, if not most, people prefer the feel of a single-stack to that of any double-stack - but they still get a double-stack...

I’m wondering because I’ve spent quite some time trotting across the wilderness, chasing critters sized like a small bungalow, and as friendly as an escaped lifer high on PCP. In my nick of the woods, we do so with bolt action rifles having a magazine capacity of three to five rounds. Some even elicit to use double barrel rifles with the grand total of two (2) rounds before a cumbersome reload. The logic behind the double is that it’s faster than any bolt for the second shot, and if a problem happens and you don’t sort it in two rounds, you’re dead anyway.

The speed at which events unfold out there is such that there is no time for spray-and-pray, and no scope either: if you shoot “center of mass or thereabout”, you’re not going to stop anything coming for you, and whatever you’re shooting at will mash you into a pink frothy pulp before it even starts feeling dizzy.

The only way to terminate an attack with immediate effect is to switch off the control panel, which means a direct hit to the brain - preferably the brain stem, or the highest part of the spinal cord. This is achieved with aimed shots. When two tons or more of pissed-off thing with sharp horns, teeth, or tusks is incoming at 20-30 miles per hour from fifty or even a hundred feet away, you have a couple of seconds to hit the right spot, three if you’re lucky. You hit it once, you’re good for a stiff one by the campfire in the evening. You miss it fifteen times, they’ll need a scraper to get you all in one heap before throwing you in the bed of the pickup.

It may be of passing interest to know that in Zimbabwe, the law states that the red line within which you can invoke self-defense for shooting a charging elephant is ten meters. Eleven yards. At 20 mph, do your maths - but hurry up...

Now, whether the critter stands on two legs or four, the general blueprint is the same: pump and piping outlay, electrical system, computer box, intake, air filters, exhaust, ball joints, suspensions. And gunfight after gunfight relentlessly hammers the point home: too many times, shooting “in the black” does not end a fight. One hit in the right place does.

So, 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?”.

Sitting perilously at my desk, with the luxury of a rewind button, I play and replay, and still think “Why so many rounds?”

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?

I’d be curious to hear from the old school guys around here...

Its because people miss their shots, and not everyone is James Bond.

The more the merrier right? Would you rather have less money and ammo, or more of both??

Carrying a semiauto with 15rds is really not that difficult if you have the correct carry setup. People do it all the time, including women. If you think you need 6rds or less, or prefer a single-stack, that is your choice.
 
Just proves the unless your on fire or about to drown part of the rule. In his case both at the same time.

I'd say JohnBlitz got it 100% correct. SGT Smith's valor is totally unrelated to what this thread is talking about
 
Here's a take that I got from a Tom Given's newsletter

Looking at Tom Givens' latest newsletter, his analysis of capacity struck me as useful. The idea is a good take on the caliber debate. He was talking about capacity and how long you could stay in the fight.

Assuming about 250 milliseconds between shots for the average person - a J frame keeps you in the fight for 1.25 seconds. An 8 shot 1911 for two seconds. A Glock 17 with 18 rounds (one chambered) is 4.5 seconds. That's a long time in a fight.

Given the lack of real differences in stopping power with modern rounds, that's telling.

It all boils down to a simple concept discussed by higher end experts. Are you carrying around the one person mugger be gone incident or also being ready for the most intense but rarer incident. Simba the Lion is irrelevant.

I've taken the Tactical Anatomy class, so I am aware of those factors. Choose your risk profile and then pronounce they are God's truth for everyone. That's what this topic is always about.
 
No one who has ever survived a gun fight has ever walked away saying, " I sure wish I'd had fewer rounds when this started".
 
See Kano383's post after yours.

You can argue all your want but NYPD's statistics tell the facts. Go back to my earlier post in this thread where I relate a NYPD Detective who always qualified expert shot 5 times at a threat and hit him once...at a range of 6 feet.

Fighters are not always the best shots. I learned this in SE Asia back in 1968. Even those guys who don't shoot that good at the range find the ability to focus on the task on hand.

Like I said before, having been there done that, gunfighting is 95% mental and 5% skill and hardware.
I usually explain it to people who have never fired a gun like this. Your on a golf course about to start a hole, your bringing your club through and 3 bullets land around your feet kicking up dirt. Where do you think that ball is going, because it isn't going to be the fairway. Then as more bullets are impacting you have to run back out there and hit the ball again. Think your score is going to be affected?
 
Someone who can consistently shoot 2-3 inches at 25 yards on paper will leave in the dust someone who just manages to stay within one foot at the same distance. On paper.
Yup, I agree completely. I don't think you read my post even though you quoted it. I have no problem believing that a person who shoots very well on the range might fall apart in a gunfight. But I do have a problem believing that a person who can NOT shoot on the range will magically be able to perform at a high level under the pressure of a gunfight.
You can argue all your want but NYPD's statistics tell the facts. Go back to my earlier post in this thread where I relate a NYPD Detective who always qualified expert shot 5 times at a threat and hit him once...at a range of 6 feet.
Are you reading my post, because that's not what I said. I have NO problem believing that a good shooter might perform badly in a gunfight. But I do have a problem believing that a person who can't shoot will perform well in a gunfight.
Fighters are not always the best shots.
Not being the "best shot" is very different from not being able to shoot. I have no problem believing that a good gunfighter might not be the top performer out of a field of shooters competing in a low-pressure shooting contest, but I do have a problem believing that a person who can't even shoot a passing grade will suddenly turn into a great gunfighter when someone starts shooting at him.
 
Yup, I agree completely. I don't think you read my post even though you quoted it. I have no problem believing that a person who shoots very well on the range might fall apart in a gunfight. But I do have a problem believing that a person who can NOT shoot on the range will magically be able to perform at a high level under the pressure of a gunfight.Are you reading my post, because that's not what I said. I have NO problem believing that a good shooter might perform badly in a gunfight. But I do have a problem believing that a person who can't shoot will perform well in a gunfight.Not being the "best shot" is very different from not being able to shoot. I have no problem believing that a good gunfighter might not be the top performer out of a field of shooters competing in a low-pressure shooting contest, but I do have a problem believing that a person who can't even shoot a passing grade will suddenly turn into a great gunfighter when someone starts shooting at him.

Keep in mind everyone in NYPD has to qualify. There is a standard to meet. Some just barely qualify and some shoot max scores with most somewhere in the middle.

You keep saying "someone who can't shoot" . Thats not what I said. I said "how good someone does in qualifications".

If you're on the NYPD and you don't qualify, you're not going to be carrying a gun. Ergo, you can't get in a gunfight can you?
 
Last edited:
Yup, I agree completely. I don't think you read my post even though you quoted it. I have no problem believing that a person who shoots very well on the range might fall apart in a gunfight. But I do have a problem believing that a person who can NOT shoot on the range will magically be able to perform at a high level under the pressure of a gunfight.Are you reading my post, because that's not what I said. I have NO problem believing that a good shooter might perform badly in a gunfight. But I do have a problem believing that a person who can't shoot will perform well in a gunfight.Not being the "best shot" is very different from not being able to shoot. I have no problem believing that a good gunfighter might not be the top performer out of a field of shooters competing in a low-pressure shooting contest, but I do have a problem believing that a person who can't even shoot a passing grade will suddenly turn into a great gunfighter when someone starts shooting at him.

Agreed, someone who can't shoot, can't shoot. What I meant is that being a poor shot on targets (not a hopeless one, just not competition material) is almost irrelevant at ten feet, the most important thing being the mental attitude, and the ability to retain control in a life-threatening situation.

The response in these situations has a lot to do with instinctive reactions, fight or flight (or freeze... seen that too). The only way to really know how one handles it is to actually go through a real-life deadly encounter.
 
FWIW Audie Murphy, most decorated soldier of WW2, only qualified marksman in basic training. Thats the lowest level of demonstrated skill in the Army. Next comes sharpshooter then expert.

Worthy of mention as that supports my statement about the best fighters are not always the best shots.
 
If I could pick two abilities out of three: to shoot 2 inch groups at 50 yards; anticipate the situation before it is happening; being steady under life threatening stress. I would not pick being able to shoot 2 inch groups at 50 yards.
 
I'll go back on the original topic for a few remarks ;)...
I think 6-9 rounds in a defensive handgun, for non-police, is really optimal. My reasoning- I figure that under duress, I can probably get 2-3 of six shots into a critical area of my assailant. If that doesn't stop him, he's likely upon me at that point, and I don't believe that another 8-10 rds will be of much use. 1 or 2 in a struggle, yes.
If it's multiple attackers, I doubt they will wait around for me to finish one guy and then turn to the next; they will rush me and overwhelm me before I can take out 5-6 such guys. That's if one of my non-targets doesn't shoot me in turn.

If we're talking about attackers who don't close on you, then you're really getting outside the role of a handgun. People yelling insults at 20 ft are not life-threatening, so shooting a bunch of them will get you in jail. If you are facing a group of shooters at any distance, then you're better with a rifle of some sort, preferably with selective fire and a large capacity... and some serious cover.
If you truly anticipate being at a realistic risk of such an attack, you're better off open-carrying a carbine of some sort, and more to the point, reconsidering your place of habitation.

Not nit-picking, because I own a lot of pistols that load 15 in the mag. But if I truly felt I needed all 15, I'd have an M4 or AK instead. And a couple buddies with the same, to keep from being flanked.
 
You keep saying "someone who can't shoot" . Thats not what I said.
You're exactly correct. I do keep saying that. I keep saying that because that's what I've been saying from the beginning. That's what I said in the initial post that you responded to as if I had said something incorrect. Here's my exact quote from post 178 on this thread.

"... A person who scores really well on a square range qualification can still be a lousy gunfighter, but someone who can't shoot even under the controlled circumstances of qualification certainly won't develop amazing marksmanship/tactical skills when someone starts shooting at them."
Kano383 said:
What I meant is that being a poor shot on targets (not a hopeless one, just not competition material) is almost irrelevant at ten feet, the most important thing being the mental attitude, and the ability to retain control in a life-threatening situation.
I suppose that if one constrains the situation to very close distances where shooting ability is almost irrelevant then shooting ability is almost irrelevant. However, I'm not sure that 10 feet is close enough to make shooting ability almost irrelevant. I've seen more than a few shooters at the local indoor range who could not consistently hit targets placed at 10 feet.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top