Using high cap magazine in SD/HD

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sam1911 said:
But that's not a real thing. There is no more drive to shoot off your line of aim when sighting through a chronograph than when the chrony isn't present
Click to expand...

While I find your attribution to confirmation bias pretty plausible, I'd like to point out that you are assuming someone has their fundamentals down, but a lot of people don't.

Some people will be looking at their chronograph because they want to be sure not to hit it, and may be more likely to accidentally shoot it if they are staring at it and not using their sights. I have seen something similar to this in a class with a FOF "hostage" drill where the hostage-taker (who was holding onto the hostage at arm's length) took about 90% of the rounds on the side of his body (and even largely arm/shoulder) that the hostage was on. It appeared that students would visually fixate on the hostage for part or all of the exchange of fire and the shots reflected this.

The hypothesis is somewhat validated by the fact that the hostage taker was holding the hostage with his left arm ("stage left"), which was to his right from the perspective of students in the class. Normally when performance decrements occur we'd expect to see the majority of people (right handed) shooting low and left. The hostage taker took most of the rounds on his left arm and shoulder.

I just offer this as interesting, not really disagreeing or making any important points here.
 
While I find your attribution to confirmation bias pretty plausible, I'd like to point out that you are assuming someone has their fundamentals down, but a lot of people don't.
Click to expand...
:) Glad somebody knows what that is!

Yes, you're absolutely right and that's something I tried to suggest with the use of "trained/practiced" as a descriptor for our hypothetical shooter.

And I hadn't even considered the rather clearly valid concept of the object of focus becoming the point of aim and impact!
 
that's something I tried to suggest with the use of "trained/practiced" as a descriptor for our hypothetical shooter.
Click to expand...


Ooops, that's what I get for making a quick drive-by post.

Anyway, glad the example made sense. I hadn't really considered the phenomenon until I witnessed the incident I referenced.
 
It's like defensive driving, look where you want the car to go (and let your mind/body help get it there), don't stare at the obstacle you are swerving around or...WHACK!:what:
 
Nobody questions or thinks twice about having a 30 round mag for their AR. Why should my Glock be any different?
 
I remember reading Massad Ayoob state his HD auto, a Beretta 92, was equipped withe the 93R 23 round magazine.
I think a home defense sidearm should have more rounds in the inserted magazine - you're in your PJs, robe, or whatever you sleep in - that usually doesn't include spare mags. Mine carries 19+1, and that works for me.

P09DutchCamo_zpsbbd91720.jpg
 
Jim K said:
Some movies and TV shows feature the hero shooting it out with gangs of heavily armed drug dealers, "firing" hundreds of shots out of dozens of guns as the bad guys keep attacking in regiments.

I have never known of any such situation in real life and certainly never experienced such a thing in some years as a LEO. Anyone who feels he needs a 30 round magazine either thinks he will be in a very unusual situation or he is totally paranoid. (Or he can't hit a barn from the inside and hopes to fire enough shots to hit something somehow!)

Jim
Click to expand...
I suppose then you'll have no use for your extra magazines, pepper spray, tazer, baton, shot gun, rifle, or all the help that will come without delay as soon as you call on your radio then.
 
Nobody questions or thinks twice about having a 30 round mag for their AR. Why should my Glock be any different?
Click to expand...
30rd magazines function and balance well in an AR, have been the standard magazine for that system for many decades. If the 33rd Glock mags function fine and don't detrimentally affect your ability to hit with it, go for it.

If 20rd AR magazines were more reliable and 30rd ones sketchy, my AR would have the 20s in it for HD.
 
Sam, ok good points. But I DO think polyester pants could cause accuracy problems-depending on the tightness thereof :neener::neener:
 
I greatly enjoy this site, and try to learn from it since my weapons experience was fairly narrowly focused all those years ago (I"ve been retired from police work since 1995). There are occasions though when I read a few posts that are pretty much "armchair commando" stuff, otherwise reasonable (probably competent) folks who lack real world experience and let their imaginations get a bit out of hand... I enjoy even those posts -the same way I view any entertainment...

In a violent, close quarters, armed conflict (something so rare in the real world outside the military that it's usually "newsworthy") the only shots you ought to be worried about are the first one, two, or three. If you're unlucky enough to face more than one opponent... you still have to deal with them one at a time. Say a quiet prayer that you never are in that position. One way or the other you won't like the deal and what comes after it at all...

As I've already said, make sure your sidearm is something you've trained, practiced with, and is an extension of your hand when needed. One last word of caution - from my experience nothing in a violent encounter is what it seems. That's just part of the deal from what I've seen. That's one of several reasons I never felt the need for any kind of extended mag for either the Beretta or Sigs that I carried for many years both on and off duty.
 
lemaymiami said:
I greatly enjoy this site, and try to learn from it since my weapons experience was fairly narrowly focused all those years ago (I"ve been retired from police work since 1995). There are occasions though when I read a few posts that are pretty much "armchair commando" stuff, otherwise reasonable (probably competent) folks who lack real world experience and let their imaginations get a bit out of hand... I enjoy even those posts -the same way I view any entertainment...

In a violent, close quarters, armed conflict (something so rare in the real world outside the military that it's usually "newsworthy") the only shots you ought to be worried about are the first one, two, or three. If you're unlucky enough to face more than one opponent... you still have to deal with them one at a time. Say a quiet prayer that you never are in that position. One way or the other you won't like the deal and what comes after it at all...

As I've already said, make sure your sidearm is something you've trained, practiced with, and is an extension of your hand when needed. One last word of caution - from my experience nothing in a violent encounter is what it seems. That's just part of the deal from what I've seen. That's one of several reasons I never felt the need for any kind of extended mag for either the Beretta or Sigs that I carried for many years both on and off duty.
Click to expand...

The bold is why I'm responding. There are two components to this that I would like to address.

1. MOST DGUs are violent, close quarters affairs. Absent violence or threat of imminent violence, there is no DGU. Typical distances (0-20 feet) are pretty common knowledge now. I note that you included the term 'armed conflict', and that you may be specifically referencing lethal weapons on both sides. The point stands, though. In the absence of lethal force on the side of the aggressor, there is no call for a DGU.

2. There have been MANY documented incidents involving very short distances where multiple hits were required. To say that only the first 1-3 shots are relevant is strictly incorrect, unless the threat is resolved in that count. Until the threat is resolved, EVERY shot counts.

It is very odd to me that you correctly suggest training, then make a comment counter to anything an experienced instructor should teach, in the same post. Where have you been taught anything that could remotely connect to the notion that only the first 1-3 shots are important?
 
I carry either a G26 or a G17.
I travel a bit and my EDC is a G26 with a pair of G19 magazines with the sleeve.
When I drive long distances I prefer my IDPA G17 and yes in the drivers door pocket is one of those evil 33 round magazines and a conventional G17 magazine on my belt and yes, more than occasionally I will take it all with me to the range.
I look at that 33 round magazine the same way I look at that fire extinguisher I keep in my truck, I may never need it; but I wont leave home without it.
I seem to remember a certain incident recently with bikers in New York, it didn't turn out well in the end for the driver. I'm thinking lots of things could have made a difference, but enough ammo would have ended that problem quickly enough.
 
Fred Fuller said:
As an aside, if you carry a 26, your reload should be a G-19 magazine without the grip sleeve. You can't pinch fingers or flesh that way seating the mag.

If you plan to carry any oversize magazine without the appropriate adapter, make sure it won't over-insert into the firearm in question when briskly seated and tie things up.
Click to expand...
Except that's not a problem with the Glocks being discussed here.

But for other makes, it's a good thing to check.
 
Yes, I'm sure you can find someone who needed every round he or she had (and still wished for more... that terrible FBI shootout comes to mind -but that was more of a military encounter than a standard self defense scene. ). Most times the issue will be settled one way or the other with those first few shots. Can't remember how many shooting scenes I was on in 22 years (during the height of the cocaine wars from 1973 to 1995) with every type of small arms in use at one time or another. In general, on those scenes with many rounds fired you rarely ever saw anyone needing a band-aid. At scenes where there was a death or critical wounding only a few rounds were discharged one way or the other. Those circumstances are exactly why I said what you've read. In all of the crews that I ran on the street I always emphasized the same thing. If weapons are needed you still need to line up your target and get hits where it counts. One or two rounds dead center is far preferable to numerous rounds fired with little actual result. Yes, there are individuals that can function fairly well with a killing shot but most times a good center mass impact will end the situation. Have fun with what comes after.

Late in my career I found myself looking into shootings by officers, including our SRT unit (which we tasked with serving felony warrants, backing up dope deals, as well as all the usual type chores). On one scene I quit counting after finding more than 100 shell casings from our unit after it was involved in a running gun battle using MP5's on full auto. NO, the good guys didn't hit anything other than cars and buildings in an open shopping center parking lot while at a dead run chasing armed subjects. As a result we quit authorizing any full auto use unless there was no other option.... Once again, a few shots properly placed will end the need for lots and lots of re-loads as long as you're the one that hits first and hits accurately.

By the way part of my experience involved running training for a 100 man department in Dade county, north of Miami, for three years. To this day I believe that proper tactics are far more important than skill with weapons. The best violent encounters are the ones that never occurred because they were handled with skill instead of weapons...
 
Last edited:
I understood the data samples on close combat shooting indicated that most incidents occurred with three shots fired. At least in America.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that this is actually the case. At the risk of repeating a prior post on another board, the NYPD SOP-9 stats 1990-2000 (http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf), the average number of rounds fired by police per confrontation was 10.3. Summaries of SOP-9 sometimes present a lower number by lumping in negligent discharges and suicides (usually single-shot incidents, which bring the average down) or considering only the number of rounds fired per officer rather than the total required to stop the threat. However, total rounds to stop is probably the more relevant statistic for CCW holders and homeowners, IMO, who will generally be acting alone in the unlikely event they have to shoot defensively.

The distribution of total rounds fired in the NYPD 2009 stats (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/AFDR200920101101.pdf) was as follows (total shots required per confrontation):

1 round, 36%
2 rounds, 13%
3 rounds, 11%
4 rounds, 9%
5 rounds, 15%
6 rounds, 6%
7 rounds, 4%
12 rounds, 2%
15 rounds, 2%
30 rounds, 2%

And this was a "low" year, in that the NYPD had exactly zero extended gunfights in 2009; all of the above appear to have been quick confrontations lasting seconds.

I hold a CHL and most often carry a very low capacity 9mm, a single-stack S&W 3913LS (8+1) with two spare mags, because double-stacks are harder to carry discreetly. But the 3913 is not my HD gun of choice, due to its limited capacity; the 17-20 round 9mm or the 20-30 round .223 carbine fill that role.

Also keep in mind that at home, concealability is almost never a criteria; running away to a safer area is usually not a viable option; home invasions are more likely to involve multiple assailants than typical scenarios outside the home; and very often the only ammunition you will have on your person is that already in the gun when you pick it up. For those reasons, I think it's not unreasonable to use a somewhat larger magazine for HD than you might for daily carry, where size and concealability are important.

For me personally, I often keep a 20-round Mec-Gar magazine in my S&W (5906) rather than the flush-fit 17-rounders, because having 3 extra rounds in reserve doesn't hurt anything and it doesn't stick out enough to unbalance the gun or make it unwieldy. For the AR I have used both 20's and 30's, but lean toward 30's since the difference in weight is insignificant. Back when I was shooting a 7.62x39mm AK, though, I typically used 20's since they were considerably lighter and handier.
 
I choose the magazine capacity I think is best from a practical standpoint, and that is what I use. Simple as that.

That often means standard capacity magazines.

Personally I wouldn't use a 33 round Glock magazine in mine for defensive use, it's unwieldy and IMO, for me, not practical.
 
I'll take the extended mag please. We used to carry 5 shot .38 Spl. Chiefs. When we went to 11 shot Glock 26's, I was thrilled. Even more thrilled when I found 17 round Glock mags would fit.

Just because you have it doesn't mean you have to use it, but it's still nice to have it.

17 beats 10 which beats 5 every time. :rolleyes:
 
The distribution of total rounds fired in the NYPD 2009 stats (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...0920101101.pdf) was as follows (total shots required per confrontation):

1 round, 36%
2 rounds, 13%
3 rounds, 11%
4 rounds, 9%
5 rounds, 15%
6 rounds, 6%
7 rounds, 4%
12 rounds, 2%
15 rounds, 2%
30 rounds, 2%
Click to expand...

Been a long time since I took statistics, but unless I am wrong, the median here is going to be 3 rds. That is probably a better representation than the average/mean in a situation like this where a couple outliers (2% @ 30rds) drastically skew the average from the likely frequency of occurrence. For instance, based on this distribution, there is only a 10% chance you would fire 7 or more rounds. Conversely, firing 3 rounds or less represents 60% of the occurrences. So in this case, it would be accurate to say most shootings in this distribution had 3 or less shots fired.
 
Eldon519, those stats were for just one year, 2009, which I think was something of an outlier. I'm sure there are more comprehensive breakdowns out there for all years, and I'd love to see them.

Still, even if those figures are taken as representative for the sake of argument, there is at least a 4 in 10 chance that 3 rounds is not enough, and a 1 in 10 chance that 7 rounds is not enough, without even considering reserve capacity or any skew toward multiple assailants in home invasions.

Certainly a 6-shot revolver or an 8-shot semiauto is vastly better than nothing, but it does leave one with little reserve and may be run empty in an actual defensive situation (such as the Newhall incident that drove the conversion to double-stack semiautos for LEO use).
 
Having more ammunition on hand is certainly always helpful, but you run up against practical considerations.

... how do I conceal my Glock 26 with a Glock 17 mag sticking out of the mag well? If I did that, why wouldn't I just carry a Glock 17, period?

... how do I conceal a Glock 17 with a 33-round extended mag sticking out of it, period?

... if I'm just talking home defense, how do I fit a Glock 17 with a 33-round extended mag in it into my desktop safe?
 
I'm going to try to make do with thirteen, but it depends on how many targets I must engage and for how long. I have another handgun that balances nicely with seventeen rounds. It's ready to back up the other.
But in the middle of the night I'm going to have to survive with five.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top