Are we kidding ourselves with these 7 round guns?

[george burns]

I grew up with a 5 round Snubby as my all around gun back in the early 70's. That's what there was and that is pretty much what folks carried, unless that were Colt 45 users. Also the S&W 39 and 59 series started gaining momentum with certain other LEO's in NY. That wanted a 9mm with more rounds.
When the Hi capacity auto craze hit, I was still carrying a revolver or a Walther380, and didn't really think all that much about it, as there was no internet so you didn't get instant feedback on every little or big thing.
Next the cops switched over to Glocks, which I remember really threw me for a loop. First they started with new recruits and as time went on they phased out all the revolvers.
The idea was to get much more ammo in a gun that was simple to use.
No more running out of ammo in the middle of a shootout. And life went on like that pretty much until we all adapted to these new super hi capacity guns, that were reliable and lightweight.
Now we seem to be going backwards again since the "safe act" which has seemed to alter gun makers into concentrating on 6 round magazines which Is basically what we had back in the 70's. I understand the economics of making "one size fits all", but I hope this is not the way the entire country is going to end up, with 7 and 8 rounds rather than 10-15. It is kind of like saying we are going to buy into their crap about smaller magazines are safer.
Now considering the FBI and other agency's facts on shootings, roughly 40% are misses, straight out miss the target while in a gunfight. So now we are talking about 3 or 4 hits with a 9mm on how many assailants?
On one, that should work, but on two, you could have to reload and that uses up time and causes problems with people who aren't used to being under fire, while they multi task.
I know someone is going to say that the likelihood is that you will never get into a gunfight and if you do only 3 shots from 3 feet in 3 seconds is the rule of thumb.
I don't care much for rules , they seem to fail when needed most. I would rather air on the safe side of the equation, and have another 4 or so rounds just in case the guy who is shooting at me brought a friend, I carry a spare mag even with my 12 round glock or my pocket pm9, "I carry 2" with that one only because it only holds 6.
Of course there are still a multitude of choices with anyware from 10-20 round mags, but I would hate for this to become a trend, and even though I may not be around in 25 years, my grandkids will, and having to accept this trend as being on the list of things to come, kind of annoys me.
So I sure hope that if this starts to become the new normal, we can put a stop to it before it causes policy to change, "because that's what happens in this country". Some senator will say, look these 6 round magazines are doing just fine, why don't we make them the law in every state.

 

[Garrobo]

I carried a

.45 for a long time but as I got older it got to the place that I didn't want the weight so I toned it down to a 5-shot, .44 spl with Corbon ammo. Lots easier to carry but tough on the palm of the hand.

 

[ugaarguy]

I think you're confusing the trend of micro sized deep carry guns with the effects of the NY SAFE Act. The micro carry gun trend was going strong long before the SAFE act.

 

[guyfromohio]

I think that eventually "because we can" has diminishing returns. If we were told "no magazines greater than 10 rounds", I would long for the 14-17 capacity guns of yesterday. But, since I don't have those restrictions, I'm able to choose my capacity based on my needs/wants. No one ever survived a gun-fight and said "I wish I had less ammo", but I'm sure there have been some circumstances where one has said "I wish I brought my gun". I don't think people are going for less capacity to subconsciously support safe-act type legislstion. These smaller guns are becoming more prolific because concealed carry is becoming more normalized...more prolific itself. The die-hard "I've been carrying for years" people are used to what they need and want, whereas a good portion of newly CCW holders, look for comfort as much as protection. I don't know if I even make sense to myself here, but.... No, I don't think smaller guns lead to more restriction. I believe they lead to more guns in the hands of more good people. Myself? I carry a 642 most of the time, a PCR some of the time, and a PPS on occasion. None fit all scenarios perfectly, but all are better than none.

 

[Old Fuff]

New York's SAFE Act has no affect on me because I reside in Arizona, and have absolutely no plans or intentions of ever setting foot in New York (State or City).

That said, the problem with hi-cap pistols is not capacity, but rather that it's not unusual for someone who is under stress to dump the whole magazine ultra-quick in a "spray & pray" mode. You can find examples in NYC where police officers have cut loose with bullets flying all around with relatively few hits on the intended target, that all to often have been innocent victims.

As a civilian I carry in an environment where I can be held responsible for every shot I may fire. A miss that hits the wrong person and injures or kills them without justification can get me incarcerated for a long, long time.

Consequently I use situational awareness to avoid as much as possible times and places where I might become embroiled in any shooting. If this fails I will make every possible effort to "evade and escape" without pulling the trigger. And if this doesn't work I will shoot the least possible times, while depending more on training, marksmanship skills, and bullet placement.

During my long life I have been in 2 situations where the circumstances might have led to shooting, and in both I emerged without firing a single shot. Hopefully I can keep it that way.

For most who are not law enforcement officers, large capacity magazines are a questionable security blanket unless one cannot avoid unusually dangerous environments.

 

[45_auto]

No one ever survived a gun-fight and said "I wish I had less ammo"

But lots of people who have survived gunfights without a gun have said "I sure wish that I had 5 or 6 rounds of ANYTHING with me instead of that 12 or 17 or 20 round GlockenSigHecklerWesson in the gunsafe at home."

 

[Mike OTDP]

Capacity is nice, but having the gun with you is essential.

 

[stonecutter2]

I don't get overly concerned about a remote circumstance within a remote scenario.

Fortunately for me, the odds of me needing to use a CCW are quite slim, and the odds of finding myself in a scenario where I need to use it, and then also need (let's say) more than 5-7 rounds are even more remote.

Yeah, carrying something with more rounds could make me more prepared, but it's a compromise I can live with.

I carry an XDS 45 with a 5 round mag. Or a P238 with 6 rounds.

 

[Jackal]

The whole argument is sorta rendered moot now that we have 10-13rd auto's roughly the size of a 5rd snubbie.

 

[skoro]

Heck, I'm comfortable with my 5 shot 38 snub.

 

[jrdolall]

I think the major reason for the rise in these pocket guns is size, weight and concealability. A 7 round 9mm or 380 is easier to conceal in a pocket than is a revolver. I know there are people that can and do carry revolvers in their pocket but the cylinder is always much thicker than a pocket semi. That doesn't mean it won't work but the semi is easier to conceal. A small gun, with fewer rounds of ammo, equals a smaller package. I think most that carry the pocket guns understand and accept the trade off and limitations. Smaller package-smaller capacity=lighter weight easier concealment.
I understand the statistics of distance and shots in SD situations but I really don't put a lot of stock in them. Average number of shots is a fine talking point but, in a fight, I want maximum number of rounds, not average. Unfortunately, I do not enjoy carrying a full sized gun around all the time so I accept the compromise that is CCW and carry a 7 round semi most of the time.

 

[DeepSouth]

I think you're confusing the trend of micro sized deep carry guns with the effects of the NY SAFE Act. The micro carry gun trend was going strong long before the SAFE act

This is my thinking as well, lots of people (myself included) like the convenience of pocket pistols. I was carrying a 6 shot 45 acp about 5 years ago.
I've had some high cap pistols but never carried any of them, some have been truck guns but that's it.

 

[Red Wind]

Heck, I'm comfortable with my 5 shot 38 snub.

I'm in accord. My S&W 340PD .38/.357 snubby with a backup 6 round Bianchi clip/wallet will do the job most days.

 

[stonecutter2]

I guess I'd be interested in seeing any recent incidents of someone carrying who ran out of ammo at a critical time. Anyone have examples? I know that preparedness is a good thing, but wonder if there is any trending demonstrating that inadequate rounds being carried is an issue to be concerned over.

I don't carry an extra mag, and would be interested to hear if I should due to experiences of others.

 

[george burns]

Don't get the wrong idea, I carry a PM9 or an XDS I a pocket holster around my development and in my house. But I do want to always have the option of having the ability to carry my 15+ round glocks, or other guns when the need arises.
After 45 years of carrying and 3 incidents, one of which involved 5 armed men, I know that these things can happen, and do, anyware, including a 24 HR doorman building with a security guard, in a good neighborhood.
I just don't want folks to get too comfy with small guns with limited supplys of ammo for every occasion. While I came back to this discussion, I was looking at AK pistols for $429.00 with 5 mags over on slickguns, now that's hard to turn down.

 

[Red Wind]

I don't carry an extra mag, and would be interested to hear if I should due to experiences of others.

I carry the clip/wallet only in the off chance of multiple attackers. With 5 rounds and my skill set, I'm going to be at or close to COM every time. And the slim minuscule wallet takes up only a tiny amount of pocket space.

So far, it's never been needed, But the gun has twice.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by skoro:

Heck, I'm comfortable with my 5 shot 38 snub.

So was I, once, but upon considerable reflection and analysis, and after taking some training, it became evident to me that that "comfort" was rather illusory.

Posted by stonecutter2:

I guess I'd be interested in seeing any recent incidents of someone carrying who ran out of ammo at a critical time. Anyone have examples?

Ayoob relates some LEO examples. No one assembles details on non-LEO encounters (with the exception of one compilation from Rangemaster covering five dozen shootings). And the number of shootings we would have to study would be small anyway.

Tom Givens of Rangemaster does not advise carrying a five shot revolver.

I don't carry an extra mag, and would be interested to hear if I should due to experiences of others.

It is generally thought that the reason to carry an extra mag is to speed the clearing of a malfunction. A second gun is faster.

You have to consider a few things:

• How many hits will it likely take to hit enough of the small vital targets hidden within the three-dimensional body of a moving attacker to effect a stop, should you ever have to do that?
• If someone should ambush you from close range, how many shots would you want to fire immediately while trying to get out of his way?
• What about a likely accomplice?
• Do you want to end up with an empty firearm?

Top trainers tend to demonstrate shooting three to five rounds very quickly when an attack occurs. If you fire four and it does work, how many would you like to have left over?

If the question was whether one would be adequately served with seven, well, three shots might do the trick, or not.

Six rounds are better than five; seven are even better; and so on. At some point, unless you are trying to enforce the law, there would seem to be a practical maximum.

Is that number thirteen? Ten? Eight?

I carry seven plus one.

But then a well known trainer recently fired ten shots at two armed robbers in a store robbery scenario in a laser simulator.

That makes one think.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Round and round....

The topic of how many rounds to carry or what type of pistol to use comes up often on gun/2A forums.
Some gun owners/CCW license holders feel they need 30-45 rounds, others feel safe or well armed with one 5 shot revolver or a 6/7 shot pistol with no spare magazines or speed strips, .

As a teen, I read a gun press item about the firearms/sidearms used by various "intel" types & special programs in SE Asia(1962-1975 era). CORDS, Air America, CIA, US State Dept, DIA/ASA, etc.
One Air America helicopter pilot would fly missions with only one Baby Browning .25acp pistol with no added mags or back up guns, .

I own and CC a M&P Shield 9x19mm no thumb safety. I used 2 9mm mags(I might get a extra factory magazine later this summer). I have Speer Gold Dot short barrel +P 124gr. I don't feel the need to carry 5/6 loaded magazines or pack a 17/18 shot 9x19mm pistol.
Do I think high cap pistols or extended mags with be outlawed? No. This political issue came & went. I follow the 3x3x3 Rule method(that most armed citizen lethal force incidents are about 3 seconds, at approx 0-3ft, with only 3 rounds fired total). The odds that I'd stand and hose down a subject with ammunition is highly unlikely.
If a CCW license holder or armed officer chooses to carry a .40 or 9mm with extra mags that's their pick but not everyone thinks that way or does it.

 

[Kleanbore]

I follow the 3x3x3 Rule method(that most armed citizen lethal force incidents are about 3 seconds, at approx 0-3ft, with only 3 rounds fired total).

Oft quoted, sometimes misquoted, never really substantiated....

Tom Givens' compilation showed the majority of shootings in his data sample occurring at three to five yards.

IIRC, the mean--not the majority--of rounds fired was just under four. But the mean is really not something that one should rely upon.

Three seconds? An attacker moving at five meters per second would make short work of a defender who took that long to shoot after drawing.

 

[hso]

Now we seem to be going backwards again since the "safe act" which has seemed to alter gun makers into concentrating on 6 round magazines which Is basically what we had back in the 70's. I understand the economics of making "one size fits all", but I hope this is not the way the entire country is going to end up, with 7 and 8 rounds rather than 10-15. It is kind of like saying we are going to buy into their crap about smaller magazines are safer.

Sounds like you're confusing the opportunity for manufacturers to exploit the lack of competition in the pocketable pistol market vs. the relatively new "SAFE" act garbage. You do realize don't you that developing a new pistol takes a good bit more time than the time since the politicians in NY met in secret under the cover of night to stab the citizens of that state in the back? Have you ever seen the failures that result when a company with a reputation to protect rushes a product that needs to be 100% reliable to the market?

No, what's occurred is that none of the manufacturers wanted to leave the lucrative pocketable pistol market to the Seacamps, KelTecs, and Rohrbaughs.

 

[Plan2Live]

Five rounds is plenty until you need more.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I'm wondering how much of the carry market is actually moving up from LCPs and the like compared to how much of the market is moving down from Glock 26s and 19s and their peers. No way to really tell but I think its at least a quarter of the market.

Personally, I believe 10 to 12 is the sweet spot for capacity and carry a Glock 26. The Browning High power has been around for a long time and in a world where 6 shots was normal had a reputation for never needing to be reloaded.

 

[Tirod]

Whether the 3X3X3 is statistically flawed or not, a lot of shooters have heard it and thought about it. They read a lot of anecdotal stories that don't disprove it - American Rifleman posts a number of stories about it every month. And the papers aren't full of high capacity shootouts.

What they do see is a need to stand off thugs who would simply rob or steal from them, and they don't see them running in heavily armed gangs sweeping thru malls or downtown - that's what is happening overseas, or in the few terrorist incidents. Close to home, it's just one or two rogues.

Americans don't perceive the need for 18 rounds - and they do read where "trained Professionals" can't get a hit with all the extra ammo anyway. Not to bust on cops, they are not nationally recognized 1% top tier shooters. They are average guys and gals who run some ammo every now and then.

We debate the millions of rounds Homeland is buying, but crunch the numbers and it's not enough to even make a decent showing on the handgun courses of a 3Gun match.

There is also that "3 seconds." Live near the mean streets, rub shoulders with the thugs who do live close at hand, you do learn the body language and see the oncoming signs of a mugging or holdup. You learn from your neighbors where not to go and why not to be there. Because of being aware of your surroundings and taking steps to minimize the risk, you don't see the need for 18 rounds plus two backup mags.

All you need is a 5-7 shot handgun, maybe a reload. What you do read is the necessity of a good holster or carry method - not the likelihood of needing 50+ rounds of ammo to battle your way back to a rifle with high cap mags.

That someone else decides to need that much carry capacity might also go to the past trend in police guns - they did change up from low capacity revolvers to the new double stack combat guns. And some departments may have needed that capacity. Others are now on the other side of the curve, tho, with a mob of cops firing away with dozens of rounds and hitting more bystanders than the situation deserves. Just because one homeless guy refuses to cooperate and makes a "dangerous" move that invites a lethal response doesn't mean a dozen backup open fire.

We had a different, slightly less than lethal answer in the past, and it was used - the nightstick. And in a lot of situations, it's still valid. It was the intermediate answer in the progression of force - eliminating it and moving directly to hi-cap combat pistols hasn't been the best answer in deescalating force on force.

With that in mind, if you also carry other means to handle a situation, why carry a battle pistol? A good thump with a baton can get the job done, too, and not everybody thinks they are going to lose a confrontational struggle. There are plenty who study and practice martial arts, with all the above the reliance on a heavy gun and load out of ammo every day living life in a peaceful manner is counterproductive.

Some of us just don't need all that male enhancement all day long.

 

[Dean1818]

I think the major reason for the rise in these pocket guns is size, weight and concealability. A 7 round 9mm or 380 is easier to conceal in a pocket than is a revolver. I know there are people that can and do carry revolvers in their pocket but the cylinder is always much thicker than a pocket semi. That doesn't mean it won't work but the semi is easier to conceal. .

For me.....A snubbie is much easier to hide and also draw in a pocket vs. a semi auto

But my pocket carry days are long behind me..... IWB for me.... Much quicker to draw

 

[76shuvlinoff]

As far as "safe" goes I just figure I am safer carrying 6 or 7 .380s vs the mega round .40 I left at home. The next step is going to be a slim 9 and maybe sell off a few "big boy" bores.