Why so many rounds?

strambo · Jan 6, 2017

For me it isn't as interesting what the averages are as why they are. Why does the typical gunfight only involve 1-3 rounds? Is it because that is all it takes to incapacitate the attacker(s)?

No, it is because they typically run away. So, if one prepares for that scenario they are prepping for undetermined attackers who will run. Odds are extremely good that will be the case and having a gun (any gun) will do and no, or minimal, training is required. (It also means all this talk about accuracy is moot as well, people aren't hitting squat in these typical 1-3rd self defense stories by and large, just making noise, winging 'em and they run)

Personally, I just can't bring myself to rely on them running or prepare for the best case (even if the overwhelmingly most common) scenario. That said, I'm a realist and have been in many dangerous places. I don't carry 2 high cap guns plus spare mags for both, tac knife, blowout kit etc as EDC. I don't carry a derringer either.

For me, shootability of the gun takes priority. Needs good grip, sights, and recoil characteristics. By the time that is met, in an auto for me that means at least a 7 shot single stack 9mm or if double stack at least 10-12 minimum in a small, but very shootable gun. I mostly carry a P226 just because I shoot it best and don't mind the size and weight. I would be shocked to ever need my flush-fit 18+1, but since I like the gun and shoot it well, why not?

Deaf Smith · Jan 6, 2017

JohnBiltz said:
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.

But it's even better if you can do all three. Bill Hickok could do all three.

Deaf

helitack32f1 · Jan 7, 2017

This entire thread boggles my mind. It was originally based on the premise that the carrying of high capacity magazines is a new, rapidly growing trend when, in reality, the trend in growth recently has been in smaller, single stack pistols. Most recently that trend has brought about things like the XD-S series, the Shield series, the Glock 42 and 43. Nearly every single company has had to come out with a low-round-count gun of some sort. Lets not forget the .380 revolution that has come along as well, with most of those not only having a small round count, but they also have a tiny round to begin with.

On top of that, look at the revolution in the 1911 world that has occurred since the 80's. It is probably the single most popular handgun on the planet now,as evidenced by the fact that one is made by nearly every company, and they usually only hold 7 or 8 rounds! The fact that high capacity 1911's haven't really taken the world by storm seems to be evidence to the contrary of the OP.

I personally believe that trying to draw any useful conclusions from the comparison of professional big game hunters and the average Joe trying to protect himself and his family is a tad bit pointless. It's like comparing apples and puppies.

Being prepared as possible is what counts. Get training, practice and carry as many rounds as you can comfortably carry. Wouldn't the best option be to get proficient AND have as many rounds as one wants and feels comfortable with? Or, is the suggestion that we should limit ourselves to 6 rounds for carry so that , should we need them, we will make the most of those six rounds, and if that isn't enough we are just SOL?

Deaf Smith · Jan 7, 2017

helitack32f1 said:
This entire thread boggles my mind. It was originally based on the premise that the carrying of high capacity magazines is a new, rapidly growing trend

Bad basis. HC guns for SD have been here for, oh, 100 years. P-35 alone since the late 1930s. I taught CHL here in Texas for the first 10 years of CHL and most people did use HC pistols back then. But you are right, more are now using smaller single column pistols for pocket carry. Belt carry I still see mostly HC.

Deaf

JohnKSa · Jan 7, 2017

Deaf Smith said:
I taught CHL here in Texas for the first 10 years of CHL and most people did use HC pistols back then.

Do you mean that most people took their CHL class qualification test with an "HC" pistol or that you had feedback from people on what they actually carried on their persons and "HC" pistols were at the top of the heap?

From what I can determine based on informal surveys of CHL holders, very few of them carry on their person at all, and those who do are primarily carrying single-stack pistols or compact revolvers. There are a lot of people who car carry "HC" pistols.

Nuclear · Jan 7, 2017

Yes, revolvers work just fine. But even the best handgun rounds will take at least a couple of hits (on average, according to the latest and greatest study I've seen) to convince bad guys to stop. If we plan for more than one bad guy (hey, we are planning for unlikely bad scenarios anyways), that means at least four rounds. If we miss more than once (even the best shooters miss under stress), that is the entire capacity of the revolver, maybe more. And unless you are a very famous Jerry, it is slower to reload a revolver than a semi-auto pistol.

Full sized pistols are easier to shoot than smaller guns. If you already have a full sized grip on a gun, a single stack is just as big as a double stack. Why not fill the grip with ammo? So the guns that are easiest to shoot have the highest capacity.

Deaf Smith · Jan 7, 2017

JohnKSa said:
Do you mean that most people took their CHL class qualification test with an "HC" pistol or that you had feedback from people on what they actually carried on their persons and "HC" pistols were at the top of the heap?

From what I can determine based on informal surveys of CHL holders, very few of them carry on their person at all, and those who do are primarily carrying single-stack pistols or compact revolvers. There are a lot of people who car carry "HC" pistols.

Both. At least those that actually packed a gun used HCs.

But now days I see two types of carriers. HC people who tend to be IDPA/IPSC types (Glock 19 being the favorite piece) and plain old Joes and Janes who have a Ruger LCP type gun. Few carry revolvers. Very few.

And those who don't have a CHL car carry (like my wife.) Her's is a P32! But she just refuses to have anything bigger. I use a Glock 26 mostly (but I do have Glocks in 43 and 42 flavors as well as 17, 32, 31, 35.)

Deaf

Pudge · Jan 7, 2017

Are there data that show likelihood of success in a gunfight increases with increases of ammo capacity of the firearm used?

JohnKSa · Jan 7, 2017

Pudge said:
Are there data that show likelihood of success in a gunfight increases with increases of ammo capacity of the firearm used?

The real questions are:

1. Has anyone collected data relating to ammo capacity in gunfights, properly compiled it into a study, and then made it available to others?
2. What do the results say?
3. Does the data provide enough confidence to draw any strong conclusions

Strambo (post 201) hit on why it might be difficult to use that data to come up with hard conclusions and it's similar to the reason it's hard to use real-world shootings to prove which service pistol caliber is the best for stopping an attacker. A lot of people give up or run when faced with a gun, even if they aren't incapacitated. In fact, not just a lot of them, the vast majority of them. More than 90 out of 100.

If you want to prepare for that kind of a "gunfight" then capacity isn't an issue. In fact, if that's the kind of gunfight you want to prepare for, you could arm yourself with a starter pistol which only fires blanks and be good to go.

If you want to prepare for the kind of a gunfight that involves a determined attacker, then the first step in trying to make sense of the data is trying to figure out which 90% of the data to throw out to get rid of the attackers who immediately gave up so you can draw conclusions about the ones who fought until they were incapacitated. If you can figure out a good way to do that with the data commonly available from self-defense gun uses, and publish your results, everyone in the gun world will know your name in a few years.

Deaf Smith · Jan 7, 2017

And one can ask, does the data show having a higher capacity hinders self defense. And if so, for what class of people (novice, mediocrity, good, expert, master?) And what kind of self defense? One attacker, two, bank takeover, home invasion, gang, 21 ninjas?

Deaf

Warp · Jan 7, 2017

Kano383 said:
Why so many rounds in the magazine?

Because more is better. I would expect to miss, stats say miss with the majority. Handguns are weak and ineffective as a general rule. Multiple attackers is not exactly rare. I'll take as many as I can fit.

Kano383 · Jan 8, 2017

JohnKSa said:
If you want to prepare for the kind of a gunfight that involves a determined attacker, then the first step in trying to make sense of the data is trying to figure out which 90% of the data to throw out to get rid of the attackers who immediately gave up so you can draw conclusions about the ones who fought until they were incapacitated.

This is the often overlooked point. Men do not fight for nothing. That's why the vast majority of attackers flee as soon as the intended victim starts shooting: they are predators looking for an easy buck, and see no reason to get killed in the process.

When the same predators are confronted by police, it's a whole different story: then they are fighting to not get killed, or spend their life in jail - powerful motivation, as well as the accumulated hatred against law enforcement.

The same if they fight between gangs: they know that even if they flee, the fight will continue. It's not a hit-and-run, it's a fight for survival in the long term, so they have something to fight for.

But in the vast majority of attacks, robberies and break-ins, the perpetrator has absolutely no intention to get shot at, and zero incentives to tolerate so.

The mental game is completely different, and the moment you shoot back at an unsuspecting innocent robber, you turn the tables.

Even when confronting the same type of people, the circumstances of an ordinary citizen and a LEO are different.

JohnKSa · Jan 8, 2017

...shoot back at an unsuspecting innocent robber...

This is hopelessly nonsensical in multiple ways. It is in fact, one of the more ridiculous confluences of words I can recall reading by an author who was not mentally disturbed or trying to intentionally give that impression.

In spite of the fact that it's probably foolish to respond logically to something like that, I'm going to give it a shot.

Kano383 said:
Men do not fight for nothing. That's why the vast majority of attackers flee as soon as the intended victim starts shooting: they are predators looking for an easy buck, and see no reason to get killed in the process.

If we are willing to focus exclusively on the vast majority of attacks (the ones where the attackers are fully rational, motivated only by money, seriously concerned about being injured, willing to give up at the first sign of danger, etc.) then yes, capacity is unimportant. In fact, given that shots are not fired in something like 90% of successful self-defense gun uses, an empty gun would suffice most of the time.

Of course, not all attackers are robbers, not all of them are rational, not all of them are unwilling to face danger, not all of them are predisposed to run at the first sign of resistance.

This is the often overlooked point.

No, it's not overlooked. It's just that many people wish to prepare for more than just the best case scenario where the attacker gives up as soon as the defender pulls a gun.

I don't expect to get a flat tire in the next month, but I wouldn't let someone talk me into leaving my spare at home for the next 4 weeks.

I don't expect to get in an automobile accident tomorrow, but I'm still going to wear my seatbelt.

I don't expect my house to burn down this year, but I'm not going to cancel my insurance to save money over the next 12 months.

I don't expect anyone to try to break into my house in the next few weeks, but I'm still going to keep locking my doors and setting the alarm at night or when I leave the house.

I expect to go my whole life without ever having to shoot someone in self-defense. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop carrying a gun or let my handgun carry permit lapse.

I know the statistics that state that most successful self-defense gun uses do not even involve a shot being fired. But that doesn't mean I'm going to carry an empty gun or needlessly handicap myself by intentionally carrying fewer rounds than I can easily carry concealed.

Kano383 · Jan 8, 2017

JohnKSa said:
"...shoot back at an unsuspecting innocent robber..." This is hopelessly nonsensical in multiple ways. It is in fact, one of the more ridiculous confluences of words I can recall reading by an author who was not mentally disturbed or trying to intentionally give that impression.

That's because you've not yet been sued by a pack of howling PC lawyers for harming a poor victim of society, who only entered your house while armed because he simply wanted to get what you selfishly own... If you want to know what nonsense is, just trawl through court records in liberal jurisdictions.

BTW, the original sentence was said with:
sarcasm |ˈsɑːkaz(ə)m|
noun [mass noun]
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt: she didn't like the note of sarcasm in his voice.

Kano383 · Jan 8, 2017

JohnKSa said:
"...shoot back at an unsuspecting innocent robber..." This is hopelessly nonsensical in multiple ways. It is in fact, one of the more ridiculous confluences of words I can recall reading by an author who was not mentally disturbed or trying to intentionally give that impression.

That's because you've not yet been sued by a pack of howling PC lawyers for harming a poor victim of society, who only entered your house while armed because he simply wanted to get what you selfishly own... If you want to know what nonsense is, just trawl through court records in liberal jurisdictions.

BTW, the original sentence was said with:
sarcasm |ˈsɑːkaz(ə)m|
noun [mass noun]
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt: she didn't like the note of sarcasm in his voice.

Deaf Smith · Jan 8, 2017

Say a question.... does having to much medical stuff in ones emergency medical kit cause more injuries? How much is enough? Why keep so much in the kit?

See how stupid the question is, 'why so many rounds'?

Deaf

Kano383 · Jan 8, 2017

Deaf Smith said:
Say a question.... does having to much medical stuff in ones emergency medical kit cause more injuries? How much is enough? Why keep so much in the kit?

See how stupid the question is, 'why so many rounds'?

Deaf

If you go and re-read, the real question was about why do people shoot 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?"

Apparently, people as "stupid" as Massad Ayoob report the same type of phenomenon: when people have the impression of an unlimited supply they waste resources (see post 155 above).

Again, if you re-read, you'll see that my contention is that it's better to shoot less and in the right spot...

Deaf Smith · Jan 8, 2017

Well no, the original post asked:

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

Deaf

45_auto · Jan 8, 2017

kano383 said:
you'll see that my contention is that it's better to shoot less and in the right spot...

That's an excellent contention, I can't imagine why no one ever thought about it that way before you came up with the idea.

Perhaps you could share your viewpoint with your local armed forces and constabulary, or better yet, go out in the bush and have someone start shooting at you. I'm sure that they will readily dispose of their assault rifles, machine guns, and high capacity pistols once they see the light. They'll only need single shot firearms once they learn to make their shots count.

As an additional learning experience, pay someone to stalk you and start shooting at you sometime when you don't expect it. You may find that it's not so easy to hit that "right spot" when you're running for cover trying to keep the other guy from hitting you in the right spot!

Pudge · Jan 8, 2017

JohnKSa said:
The real questions are:

1. Has anyone collected data relating to ammo capacity in gunfights, properly compiled it into a study, and then made it available to others?
2. What do the results say?
3. Does the data provide enough confidence to draw any strong conclusions

Strambo (post 201) hit on why it might be difficult to use that data to come up with hard conclusions and it's similar to the reason it's hard to use real-world shootings to prove which service pistol caliber is the best for stopping an attacker. A lot of people give up or run when faced with a gun, even if they aren't incapacitated. In fact, not just a lot of them, the vast majority of them. More than 90 out of 100.

If you want to prepare for that kind of a "gunfight" then capacity isn't an issue. In fact, if that's the kind of gunfight you want to prepare for, you could arm yourself with a starter pistol which only fires blanks and be good to go.

If you want to prepare for the kind of a gunfight that involves a determined attacker, then the first step in trying to make sense of the data is trying to figure out which 90% of the data to throw out to get rid of the attackers who immediately gave up so you can draw conclusions about the ones who fought until they were incapacitated. If you can figure out a good way to do that with the data commonly available from self-defense gun uses, and publish your results, everyone in the gun world will know your name in a few years.

As long as we understand that we are debating suppositions rather than established facts, the discussion is fine. Once you start in with probabilities and looking at what is likely, you really start splitting hairs. When I start preparing for multiple armed attackers, who are determined to carry out the fight, and at the same time unskilled enough to allow me to defend myself, we are getting into the realm of probability where the argument of the reliability of a revolver vs a Glock might be worth considering.

The reality is that we have lots of options, and lots of environments. The US is remarkably safe (outside of a few select violent areas), and fortunately this is primarily a theoretical debate. But we are much of the time framing someone else's decisions in our personal realities. I don't lock my doors in my home. I leave my keys in my truck in case someone might need it. Things are different for me now than when I lived in the East Liberty neighborhood of Pittsburgh. I don't disagree that when considering personal defense, my ammo requirements might not be adequate for others' environments, but personally I believe that an individual should prioritize a firearm that they shoot well, and will carry over magazine capacity.

JohnKSa · Jan 8, 2017

Pudge said:
As long as we understand that we are debating suppositions rather than established facts...

That depends on what you mean. It is established fact that sometimes more than 5 rounds are required to defend against a determined attacker or multiple attackers. Trying to nail down the exact probability of needing a given amount of rounds for self-defense involves suppositions.

I don't lock my doors in my home. I leave my keys in my truck in case someone might need it.

Yeah, a friend of mine has parents that do the same thing. Someone recently broke into their home (well probably just walked in, actually) and took things they needed--including their car which had the keys in it. I don't know if it changed their "personal reality" or not, but it certainly caused them a lot of trouble. The problem with "personal realities" is that there's a real reality that sometimes interferes with peoples' misconceptions about what they think about reality.

Kano383 said:
That's because you've not yet been sued by a pack of howling PC lawyers for harming a poor victim of society, who only entered your house while armed because he simply wanted to get what you selfishly own... If you want to know what nonsense is, just trawl through court records in liberal jurisdictions.

So first we were talking about how many rounds it takes to subdue an attacker, then it's about the mental game and how all attackers respond but not really--it's sarcasm about PC lawyers and what happens in court? Ok, whatever. I love sarcasm, but for the future, if you're going to throw some sarcasm into the middle of a post that otherwise gives no hint of being sarcastic, it's more productive if you provide some way for readers to detect it.

Double Naught Spy · Jan 8, 2017

Kano383 said:
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?

Well, when you go back and read a lot of the old police reports where officers ran out of ammo, or were killed trying to reload, some as recent as the 80s, the answer is YES, it was like that when the usual load was six in a wheelgun or seven in a 1911 (though smart guys topped off with 8).

Zoogster · Jan 8, 2017

This entire thread boggles my mind. It was originally based on the premise that the carrying of high capacity magazines is a new, rapidly growing trend when, in reality, the trend in growth recently has been in smaller, single stack pistols. Most recently that trend has brought about things like the XD-S series, the Shield series, the Glock 42 and 43. Nearly every single company has had to come out with a low-round-count gun of some sort. Lets not forget the .380 revolution that has come along as well, with most of those not only having a small round count, but they also have a tiny round to begin with.

Exactly.
If I wasn't kept in the past with our approved handgun list in CA that few new models get on, I would find new handguns more interesting. Since concealed carry has gotten popular the return of the mouse gun and various pocket pistols that are easier to carry at the expense of ammunition has been the trend. Handguns actually are starting from a high capacity period in the 80s and 90s and going to thinner smaller guns that hold less with a flush magazine.

Handguns went to high capacity double stacks because quite frankly they are not very effective per round and people made up for that with volume of fire when the technology came along and kept the dimensions and weight close to the old guns. It was primarily a law enforcement demand that changed guns into high capacity semi auto pistols. Handguns are most of law enforcement's primary weapon. They have a long gun if they know there is going to be trouble, but generally rely on their pistols as they don't know trouble is coming most of the time that it does.
The willingness to go to lower capacity is purely because one it willing to sacrifice capacity if you can conceal and carry the thing better all day if you cut its round count in half. That push in the market is the concealed carry crowd, but plenty of that market is still staying with the higher capacity slightly larger designs because those are guns designed to be used as a sidearm from the start, designed for shooting well as a weapon first, and how well they carry second. Some guns fall in between. All are still just pistols.
Larger guns are certainly better once you need a gun, generally having better sights, more mass countering recoil, carrying more rounds, and fewer people put up with a gun design being inaccurate in a service pistol. But a gun that carries well enough to be carried more places more often is the gun that lets you be less tied down because you carry a gun, and so people give up some of that for various designs that carry better.

So the real question should have been 'why are we going to so few rounds?'
Because some will sacrifice them for something more convenient.

JohnBiltz · Jan 9, 2017

Zoogster said:
Exactly.
If I wasn't kept in the past with our approved handgun list in CA that few new models get on, I would find new handguns more interesting. Since concealed carry has gotten popular the return of the mouse gun and various pocket pistols that are easier to carry at the expense of ammunition has been the trend. Handguns actually are starting from a high capacity period in the 80s and 90s and going to thinner smaller guns that hold less with a flush magazine.

Handguns went to high capacity double stacks because quite frankly they are not very effective per round and people made up for that with volume of fire when the technology came along and kept the dimensions and weight close to the old guns. It was primarily a law enforcement demand that changed guns into high capacity semi auto pistols. Handguns are most of law enforcement's primary weapon. They have a long gun if they know there is going to be trouble, but generally rely on their pistols as they don't know trouble is coming most of the time that it does.
The willingness to go to lower capacity is purely because one it willing to sacrifice capacity if you can conceal and carry the thing better all day if you cut its round count in half. That push in the market is the concealed carry crowd, but plenty of that market is still staying with the higher capacity slightly larger designs because those are guns designed to be used as a sidearm from the start, designed for shooting well as a weapon first, and how well they carry second. Some guns fall in between. All are still just pistols.
Larger guns are certainly better once you need a gun, generally having better sights, more mass countering recoil, carrying more rounds, and fewer people put up with a gun design being inaccurate in a service pistol. But a gun that carries well enough to be carried more places more often is the gun that lets you be less tied down because you carry a gun, and so people give up some of that for various designs that carry better.

So the real question should have been 'why are we going to so few rounds?'
Because some will sacrifice them for something more convenient.

Not saying you are wrong, because you are not and that probably describes most of this forum. But there are a lot of people who did the opposite. They did not grow up with guns and with the advent of concealed carry found themselves buying a gun for the first time and it was probably a small .380 or small 9mm. I think a lot of that was ignorance, and I chose that word carefully, they just did not know much about guns. So they googled "concealed carry firearms" and what pops up are various lists of top 5 to top 20 and they went from there. Try it, that is what happens. On every one of those lists is a LCP. I realized this because yesterday I did the same thing with cars. They may well have made the right decision for themselves, but that is more a function of there being a lot of really good choices for them to pick right now rather than forethought. A lot of those guys are moving up from smaller guns as their knowledge of firearms increases and interest changes and increases.

For myself, there were not a lot of single stack 9mm at the time I began carrying 7 years ago. I had knowledge of guns so I made a list. I wanted at least 10 round capacity, 9mm, and a Glock or Glock like characteristics because I had owned one Glock or another since the early 90s. I looked at a few other firearms like S&W but the obvious choice was a G26. I'm still carrying that gun.

fastbolt · Jan 9, 2017

See what I mean by no definitive and satisfactory "answers" usually being forthcoming?

Folks, there's often 3 major groupings of individuals when it comes to thinking about carrying a firearm as a dedicated defensive weapon ...

Those who won't ever entertain the idea (and many of them aren't enthused about anyone else doing so), and aren't required to do so for employment/professional reasons.

Those who must, because of a professional requirement.

Those who wish to do so.

Sure, there are some distinct sub-groupings within each of those major groups, but you get the main idea.

Next, people like to talk about statistics and potentially "missing" with intended shots fired. Don't let such discussions subconsciously accustom you to thinking missing the intended threat is either inevitable, or somehow acceptable. Don't let it ease any discomfort experienced when shooting for training or practice and seeing more "misses" than you might expect, and more than you'd wish. Practice to make the intended hits, and mentally prepare to make intended hits. Don't just 'hope" for it to occur. Strive to develop the skills to make the intended hits. Don't let your expectations become a de facto acceptance of anything that falls short of your goal.

For those folks who like to argue that anyone who doesn't "believe" in the benefits of 'high capacity' magazines in pistols is missing the point, consider that not everyone looks at an issue and "sees" the same points, or their comparative relevance.

Oh yeah, if someone likes to talk about carrying a spare tire, even if they think they won't normally need it, if you're that serious about having "spares" ... how many spare tires do you carry? If only ONE, why? Why wouldn't it make sense, since spare capacity and preparedness is such a "need", to fill your trunk with spare tires? Better to have and not need, right?

Make your choice for the reasons that seem realistic and prudent to you, but at the same time get some foundation knowledge about the subject and re-examine what you're basing your reasoning on in the first place. Make sure your expectations and beliefs aren't just masking some unspoken concern that might be better addressed with more training and practice.

Why so many rounds?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Administrator

Member

Member

Member

Administrator

Member

Member

Member

Administrator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Administrator

Sus Venator

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads