Number of rounds used in defense going up?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kleanbore said:
Nope. Two different things. The latter is more important: "suppressive fire" by "mag dumping" is a military tactic, unlawful. for civilians and LEO.
Click to expand...
You are still being redundant here.
Kleanbore said:
What?
Click to expand...
No further explanation needed then.

Kleanbore said:
We may not be paid to enforce the law, and we may not not have a sworn duty to do so, but those of us who carry for defense are limited by the same constraints regarding the use of deadly force objectives as LEO: defending ourselves and third parties when immediately necessary, using the minimum force required.

Law enforcement went to DA-only revolvers because of civil liability, (that's also ) the reason for the pull weight specifications for semi-auto service pistols). That is one reason why many civilians have done the same thing. My defensive revolvers have concealed or bobbed hammers, for good reasons. One reason is to prevent plaintiffs from being able to assert that a shooting resulted from a single-action trigger pull. The other, which is peculiar to concealed carry, is to eliminate the possibility of snagging.
Click to expand...
Redundancy and with fallacies again.

Sigh...
 
AJC1 said:
I think the real discussion is trained vs untrained and how beneficial is extra rounds when untrained. This is obviously three levels removed if you can't avoid conflict then your presentation of a deadly weapon and then escalating past the first shot and then how many shots till empty. Are we debating a situation really requiring a full tactical loadout...
Click to expand...
I'm getting that vibe too.
 
AJC1 said:
I think the real discussion is trained vs untrained

and how beneficial is extra rounds when untrained.
Click to expand...
I do not. Most trained and knowledgable defensive carrier would prefer more to fewer rounds. How many is a judgment call.

The reason is simple: the one-shot stop is an anomaly; the body parts that must be hit to effect a reliable timely stop are invisible and likely moving quickly, indicating the desirability of multiple hits in the time available. It's a matter of probability. Marksmanship will not suffice.
 
Kleanbore said:
I do not. Most trained and knowledgable defensive carrier would prefer more to fewer rounds. How many is a judgment call.

The reason is simple: the one-shot stop is an anomaly; the body parts that must be hit to effect a reliable timely stop are invisible and likely moving quickly, indicating the desirability of multiple hits in the time available. It's a matter of probability. Marksmanship will not suffice.
Click to expand...
Again the percentage of the encounter being discussed at this point is uncommon at best. Just having an EDC will cover 99.9% of encounters and somehow this post was drug into an arbitrary 5 headed monster where revolver shooters can't hit the target and mise well just be unarmed sheep. I'm going to respectfully bow out at this juncture.
 
How many times a year does the military actually shoot these days?

Other than the guys I know that were into guns, I was never impressed in what I saw from most of the ex-military people Ive shot with. Saw a lot of pretty scary stuff too.
 
Wow, this thread is still alive. Seven pages, and still a lot of arguing.

Basically, we just have another capacity debate on our hands. There's no "right" answer, then. And there's no such thing as an "average" gunfight.

Had a shooting a few years back, guy was shot, sitting in his car at a gas station mini mart. We numbered 41 9mm shell casings at the scene. Even as a private citizen now, I'm gonna plan for a worst-case scenario, not an "average" situation.
 
Over the weekend my ex, youngest son and her parents went back to the "safe" Chicago suburb we all lived in to get her parent's house in order to sell as we've all moved to SE Wisconsin. Sunday morning we all received an automated voicemail message from that suburb's police department that four males are driving around town trying to steal cars, and at least one of them is armed. I don't understand people who can't comprehend that if you're unfortunate enough to run into thugs like this and retreating is not an option that having a gun with more rounds gives you a better (not good, but better) chance of defending yourself. Sadly this happens all too often where we used to live and is not the exception.
 
TomJ said:
Over the weekend my ex, youngest son and her parents went back to the "safe" Chicago suburb we all lived in to get her parent's house in order to sell as we've all moved to SE Wisconsin. Sunday morning we all received an automated voicemail message from that suburb's police department that four males are driving around town trying to steal cars, and at least one of them is armed. I don't understand people who can't comprehend that if you're unfortunate enough to run into thugs like this and retreating is not an option that having a gun with more rounds gives you a better (not good, but better) chance of defending yourself. Sadly this happens all too often where we used to live and is not the exception.
Click to expand...
Your car thieves with one possibly armed weren't breaking in, just stealing cars. retreating is a real option because no home was invaded and no lives threatened.

Out and about going grocery shopping in public or having lunch with friends in public in a low risk area and seeing guys trying to steal my car and have the numbers with an unknown who has guns or not, totally different story. Not even a G17 by myself would work, retreat and let the cops be cops. Capture it on cell for insurance purposes, your life wasn't in danger meaning you do have a duty to retreat and wait for the cops to do cop things if your state has no use of force to protect property laws so may as well carry what's right for them in that case then.
 
You can explain away anything, or maybe you can explain a carjacking, where youre in a car they want, and there is nowhere to go. You get what you get, and you get to deal with it when you get it. If you can get away and safely play movie director, great, and if you can let the cops do thier thing, even better. But what if you cant?

Again, what seems to be missed here by those who dont want to admit that things do happen to good and bad people, no matter where you are or live is, if youre going to carry a gun, you need to be as well prepared to use it as possible, and be prepared for the worst, and not just the gunfight you always win in your mind.
 
While I believe there are a few more multiple assailant, car jacking, home invasion type crimes occuring these days I think it's still true that most incidents are only a few rounds fired. Sometimes I carry smaller round count guns but I feel better carrying a full size with 16-17 rounds.
 
The_Quartermaster said:
Your car thieves with one possibly armed weren't breaking in, just stealing cars. retreating is a real option because no home was invaded and no lives threatened.

Out and about going grocery shopping in public or having lunch with friends in public in a low risk area and seeing guys trying to steal my car and have the numbers with an unknown who has guns or not, totally different story. Not even a G17 by myself would work, retreat and let the cops be cops. Capture it on cell for insurance purposes, your life wasn't in danger meaning you do have a duty to retreat and wait for the cops to do cop things if your state has no use of force to protect property laws so may as well carry what's right for them in that case then.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. This was one example of a crime being committed by multiple assailants. Car jackings, home invasions, robberies and drive by shootings are also being committed by multiple assailants. Of course the wise thing to do is not confront them if possible, but that's not always a choice. When you don't have a choice but to defend yourself against multiple attackers having more rounds is a better option than fewer rounds.
 
When is ever having less rounds the better option? Ever?

Since it seems people want to go small these days, these guns are basically the same size. Given you shoot them both equally well, one is still the better choice, and for a couple of reasons. ;)

dWDP5ZdA7LI-ODz-whuftU3A2E7XgCz2ndbrlrnHjCyIZu59oV2we_kMG9A?cn=THISLIFE&res=medium&ts=1667853791.jpg
 
aaaaa said:
Provided he is not in the car when they try to steal it.
Click to expand...
Extrapolating it doesn't factually problem solve it though.

At this point in this game, no one is going to be changing anyone's minds about the capacity arguments, especially when using appeals as a wrongful argument.
 
So let me get this right, anything "you" say, based on your view of the world, is the correct argument, and anything the rest of us say, is a wrongful argument because we disagree with your view of the world. Is that right?

Every instance is its own critter, and you simply get what you get. Its just that simple. The only question here is, are you prepared, or not. Simple as that.

If having more ammo in the gun is somehow a detriment, Id sure like to hear that argument.
 
TomJ said:
You're missing the point. This was one example of a crime being committed by multiple assailants. Car jackings, home invasions, robberies and drive by shootings are also being committed by multiple assailants. Of course the wise thing to do is not confront them if possible, but that's not always a choice. When you don't have a choice but to defend yourself against multiple attackers having more rounds is a better option than fewer rounds.
Click to expand...
Ah, so there is no point to be made then when lumping them all together is what you're telling me.

Did you know that a legal self defense citizen or law enforcement shoot is still counted as a homicide and also lumped in with shootings when being used by the anti's about derp violence?

When I am home, I'm going to prefer a rifle, it's what I know. I can have it around without killing my back. Since I can't have a rifle concealed without printing or killing my back, I'll do the next best thing that also doesn't kill my back and doesn't print, because the risk is very low and I'd be already avoiding target rich environments and avoid confrontations as much as possible, meaning I've done my homework here making your argument not realistic in my case.

Everyone's situation and state laws are different in rules of force. I don't know any state that allows me to engage as a private citizen four robbers working as a crew on property that I have no duty to protect so long as my life is not in danger nor the public's. And even if I was able, I'm not so sure a G17 with a 33 round mag or an M4 could guarantee me a john Wick outcome against four men. In other words, talk is cheap, know your laws and lane, the rest is just over compensations for the unknowns.
 
 
I’d like to see the opinions of at least three actual trainers posted on here. How do you teach your students to stop the threat? Go….
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
The Most Potent Self Defense Rounds
2 3
Replies
61
Views
12K
Trumpetman
T
K
  • Locked
self defense story - Glaser rounds
Replies
14
Views
3K
BHPshooter
B
D
  • Locked
Derringers - For Serious Personal Defense
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
13K
techcowboy
T
Skribs
  • Locked
Auto vs Revolver, under 5 feet
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
3K
Sam1911
S
D
  • Locked
The self-defense market
Replies
11
Views
1K
Peetmoss
P
Back
Top