Would you please supply the source that proves this?That oft quoted "2-3 rds per encounter" stat is WRONG. It includes suicides, AD's, warning shots, executions, animal put downs where only one round is typically fired.
If that's true, the 2-3 shots per encounter bit may be a fallacy, but it's still demonstrates the point that 2-3 shots is sufficient.
Bingo!I'm happy with a big-bore six-shot revolver.
So that hi-cap 7+1 1911 is really a bonus!!
Dang-it. English was never my strength... actually broke up with a girl because she couldn't stand my "texting language". Lol."less bigger rounds" is another way of saying "smaller rounds"
The correct term is "fewer larger rounds".
And yes, I am in this camp.
Keepin' it Ol' School... I like that. I'm in love with the newer, modern firearms but LONG LIVE THE REVOLVER!I'm happy with a big-bore six-shot revolver.
So that hi-cap 7+1 1911 is really a bonus!!
I never subscribed to the "Spray & Pray" school of gun fighting.
Because the more shots you blast away with, the more times you miss.
And every stray bullet finds a place to stop somewhere!
rc
Hmm. It will be interesting to see where this goes. I was always told (not by cops) that a average volient encounter is always 5-10 feet and ends after 2-3 rounds.What if the shot that finally makes the victim safe from their attacker isn't the second or third or even eighth one fired? Lots of people move around quite a bit when they are engaging in heavy aggression against someone else, and even more so when they know they are being targeted with a firearm.
I don't think you can conclude that 2-3 is sufficient just because many times that is enough to wrap up a violent encounter, especially since there is little way of knowing if a given attacker has friends with him that may decide they don't want to step into a fusillade of bullets and take off.
The 2-3 number isn't a useful figure if it includes all of the different situations David said it does, and I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that it does include all those extraneous events.
I wasn't coming to the conclusion that 2-3 rounds is sufficient, I was just saying it's a possibility. And assuming the statistic includes absolutely anything is unreasonable, because your assumption potentially changes that statistic entirely, regardless of what your assumption actually is, which is why I asked for the source.I don't think you can conclude that 2-3 is sufficient just because many times that is enough to wrap up a violent encounter, especially since there is little way of knowing if a given attacker has friends with him that may decide they don't want to step into a fusillade of bullets and take off.
The 2-3 number isn't a useful figure if it includes all of the different situations David said it does, and I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that it does include all those extraneous events.
Well well well aren't we a BAMF. Hopefully that ONE round handles your threat or threats.I don't really care either way. I don't plan on missing the first shot.