Are we kidding ourselves with these 7 round guns?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Ash:

Kleen, do you have any objective basis for your ability to take down three men gunning for you with 15 rounds and a few reloads?

I do not carry fifteen, and I would not expect to be able to use "a few reloads" in defending against an ambush.

How about confidence?

Nice to have, but not necessarily justified.

I am utterly confident that I can do what I need to do with 6 rounds of .357.

I hope you are never proven wrong.

As I said in Post # 17:

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.

If you lack that level of confidence, okay.

Yes, I do.

If you feel the need to prepare for a horde of angry mongols, fine.

I do not. When violent attacks do occur, the likelihood that two or more attackers will be involved is greater than not. A "horde"?. Far, far, far less than remote. No reason to discuss it.

Otherwise, there is absolutely no need for a large body of pistols on the market.

There is a demand. I have a couple of five shot revolvers--for backup.

Even so, I am confident I can take care of what needs to be done with said revolver.

And you may be able to--some of the time. But while justified confidence is a good thing, it may well not suffice.

Personally, I am not at all confident that I will always be able to "take care of what needs to be done." I keep my eyes open and I train and I practice, but I do not set unreasonably high expectations for myself when I know that should an ambush occur, I would be facing a couple of bad people who have the initiative and the advantage of surprise. I try to prepare, but I may not succeed.

I'm also smart enough to know when going into urban combat is not a good idea.

I'm afraid that is a very low threshold. It is never a good idea. Ever.

 

[Ash]

"I do not. When violent attacks do occur, the likelihood that two or more attackers will be involved is greater than not."

And your statistics are based on...

Let's put it plain. High cap and high round men on this forum are not somehow more intelligent nor wise than those of us who know what we can do, practice with what we have, and practice situational awareness. In an ambush, you're dead already. If they get the jump on you and start firing, game over. If that is what you are planning on, I suggest you start wearing body armor as that is far more important than number of rounds you have. Just because you feel the need to have more bullets does not make you smarter or even better prepared than those of us content with what 6 rounds will provide.

Most of us will never experience any kind of fire fight what so ever. Even so, having dealt with encounters as wide ranging as the aforementioned shooting, to wild boars, to pot plots, to gaping abandoned wells, I have some experience in this world. Mine is the experience of rural, non-urban settings. A revolver will do everything I need it to do. I am a forester. I know the woods. I know the terrain. I know where I go. I know what I need. I am confident with what I carry. That neither makes me ignorant nor a fool.

A man must be confident with the equipment he carries.

Oddly enough, a Mississippi Highway Patrol officer I know (and that organization is better trained than most law enforcement agencies save for the Texas Rangers) feels utterly confident with nothing more than a North American 22 Mag revolver in his pocket when off duty. That's good enough for a well-trained professional. A Ruger Police Service Six will foot the bill just fine.

 

[TomJ]

When Illinois passed concealed carry, I had a couple of decisions to make. The first was easy, whether I wanted to apply for a permit or not. The answer was an obvious yes. The second was what I wanted to carry. I hadn't shot a gun for about 20 years, since I resigned as a LEO, and there were obviously many changes to firearms since then. This was not a decision I thought should be made emotionally, but logically.

My first realization was that while I've unfortunately been in the position of needing a gun in the past, the odds of needing one again were remote. If a gun is needed, many times simply producing it will end the threat, so I understood that the odds of actually having to fire it were even more remote. The odds of having to fire it multiple times? They continue to be more remote. The odds of emptying a 15 round magazine? More remote. The odds of emptying a 15 round magazine and having to reload? You get my point. By the time I calculated the odds of having to shoot 15 or more times, having to reload and emptying another magazine, those odds were so remote that it's almost guaranteed not to happen.

While I often pocket carry a P938, which gives me a capacity of 7 rounds, when I carry IWB I usually carry one of my Glocks, which offer a higher capacity. Today I carried my 19 with a spare magazine, giving me a total of 31 rounds. It was not because I was anticipating having to fight off a horde of Mongrels, angry or otherwise, and I had no desire to trade the 19 in for a belt fed machine gun, as cool as that might be to have. It was based on the fact that while the odds are negligible that I would need 1 round, much less 31, there was no down side to carrying that gun and a spare magazine. In the incredibly unlikely event that I needed it, it was there. If not, I lose nothing. If you also add in the fact that living in Chicago, which has well publicized gang problems, when attacks do happen it is often by multiple attackers as they tend to travel in packs, or hordes if it's a Mongrel gang. I don't think it's unreasonable to want more than a 5 round gun if facing 3 to 4 attackers. In regards to giving up as the odds are against me in that situation, I can't even think that way. I have no intention of shooting it out with them, but I will take any advantage I can to remove myself from the situation.

For people who are comfortable carrying a revolver or other lower capacity gun, you should do so, and it's not my place or anyone else's place to question your decision. I'd ask for the same respect for those of us who thoughtfully made the decision to carry a higher capacity gun.

One last thought. The anti's obviously would like to do away with our Second Amendment rights all together. Seeing how they can't do that, where possible they limit our rights, and one of the ways they do that is by limiting the capacity of magazines. Many of the arguments they make and the way they portray us is not too far off of some of the posts I've read here. Please think about that before criticizing the choices fellow gun owners make. There is a difference between explaining your rational for what you carry, which is valuable as it gives us things to think about that we otherwise may not have considered, versus attacking the decision others make.

 

[Ash]

I have no problem with guys carrying high capacity pistols. I own them, too. I have two 15 round pistols (AT-84 and CZ-75). I respect a man's choice and am just fine by that. I'll bristle at the implication that I somehow am a lesser or ignorant shooter because of the choice I make, made with full knowledge of what I have, how I will employ it, and under what circumstances.

That's the point, here. You mention we should consider how we criticize others. Exaggerations and the like are simply a response to high-handed condescention. Hi cap guys can be hi cap guys and can train for multiple encounters. Just don't tell how uninformed the rest of us are.

 

[TomJ]

I have no problem with guys carrying high capacity pistols. I own them, too. I have two 15 round pistols (AT-84 and CZ-75). I respect a man's choice and am just fine by that. I'll bristle at the implication that I somehow am a lesser or ignorant shooter because of the choice I make, made with full knowledge of what I have, how I will employ it, and under what circumstances.

That's the point, here. You mention we should consider how we criticize others. Exaggerations and the like are simply a response to high-handed condescention. Hi cap guys can be hi cap guys and can train for multiple encounters. Just don't tell how uninformed the rest of us are.

Ash,

I won't speak for others, but as I stated I'll never question the decision someone else makes as it has absolutely no impact on me or mine.

Tom

 

[Ash]

Agreed.

I do wonder where the statistics are that say violent attacks most likely occur in groups of two or more.

 

[Kleanbore]

In an ambush, you're dead already. If they get the jump on you and start firing, game over.

Oh come on now. Think about it, Ash.

An ambush is a surpise attack.

If one could have foreseen it, one would have avoided it.

Just because you feel the need to have more bullets does not make you smarter or even better prepared than those of us content with what 6 rounds will provide.

You are right there.

Most of us will never experience any kind of fire fight what so ever.

Very true indeed, and that is good.

Even so, having dealt with encounters as wide ranging as the aforementioned shooting, to wild boars, to pot plots, to gaping abandoned wells, I have some experience in this world. Mine is the experience of rural, non-urban settings. A revolver will do everything I need it to do. I am a forester. I know the woods. I know the terrain. I know where I go. I know what I need. I am confident with what I carry. That neither makes me ignorant nor a fool.

No one should ever characterize you as a fool, but have you had any training in defensive use of force actions?

A man must be confident with the equipment he carries.

A man or woman should be able to use his or her equipment competently.

Hi cap guys can be hi cap guys and can train for multiple encounters.

Two different subjects.

Since an attack by more than one assailant by more than one assailant is somewhat mor likely than attack by only one, it would seem prudent to train in the appropriate skill sets.

Hi cap? Well, Rob Pincus fired ten "rounds" in a laser sim scenario involving a store robbery. I carry fewer. The question was about seven.

Is seven enough? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

 

[Ash]

Okay, Kleen, think about it. You are worried that two or more, as per your observations, will ambush you. If they are intent on killing you, just how likely are you to draw, kill or incapacitate one, turn and do the same on a second, turn and do the same on a third, all the while not getting shot by at least one, if not more than one, of the determined attackers.

In what way do your odds even approach parity with theirs? If 6 rounds (or your seven rounds) are not enough, then we are already crossing into the threshold of nothing being enough. I am confident in what I can do with my six rounds (after Katrina, I carried 10 rounds of 45acp). If the scenario exceeds what I can do with those six rounds, more are not likely going to matter. You cannot prepare for every circumstance without going out on patrol in full battle gear.

By the way, where are the statistics that violent attacks most often occur with two or more attackers?

 

[Sol]

Carry whatever you're comfortable with.

Chances are you'll never have to use it, let alone pull it.

 

[JohnBiltz]

There was a study a few years ago that broke muggings down by numbers. It was 25% for one mugger, 50% for two and 25% for 3 or more. So you were three times as likely to encounter multiple opponents as a single opponents.

 

[TomJ]

Agreed.

I do wonder where the statistics are that say violent attacks most likely occur in groups of two or more.

Ash,

I don't know about the statistics, but I can tell you that I've unfortunately faced multiple attackers more than once. It's not something that's out of the ordinary. In regards to predicting what may happen, I don't try to do that, as there's absolutely no way anyone can predict those things. All we can do is our best to avoid those situations and be as reasonably prepared as possible for when, or if it happens.

 

[Ash]

On that I agree.

 

[orionengnr]

In an ambush, you're dead already. If they get the jump on you and start firing, game over.

Oh come on now. Think about it, Ash.
An ambush is a surpise attack.
If one could have foreseen it, one would have avoided it.

Ash noted that if you are ambushed, you are done.

What did the Mod's follow-up add? Absolutely nothing (aside from the mis-spelling of "surprise")

Carry what you will, practice with it, and know that you are well ahead of 99.9% of the GenPop.

To address the OP's question...seven rounds are fine. Eight is a little bit better, nine is...you get the idea. But too many people take that to an extreme, and conflate the ability to carry 19 rounds with the ability to place 19 rounds...

 

[Cee Zee]

Other cold hard facts are that if you go up against several attackers, you're up the creek.

You know I can prove otherwise. right? A friend of mine was attacked by 5 biker gang lunatics. He came in his apartment to see them running a broken broom handle through his brother. Their crime was trying to leave the gang. My friend killed 3 of the bad guys and the others fled. That's one example. There are plenty more.

Besides all this it doesn't take a whole batch of bad guys for a high capacity pistol to come in handy. When the other guy has more rounds in his pocket than you do and you're trying to hold him off until help arrives when you run out of ammo you also run out of luck.

But there's plenty of examples of holding off multiple bad guys. Sgt. York is our prime example but there are more recent ones. The movie "Lone Survivor" certainly shows the ability to hold off multiple bad guys even though you are greatly outnumbered and out gunned. Then there's this soldier who held off 30 Taliban by himself.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/06/meet-soldier-held-off-30-taliban-attackers-alone/38437/

Yes these are military examples. There are others but they aren't as prominent. Like this grandfather who held off three would be rapists by shooting 2 of them.

Feel free to carry what you want Ash. I'm sure you don't need anyone to tell you that. But it's just obvious that more is better. Again a couple of speed loaders can make a .357 a high capacity hand gun. I looked for 2 minutes to find the examples of people overcoming multiple attackers. It may not be something that is likely or even plausible every time. But sometimes it certainly does happen and I want to be able to give it a try rather than just waiting for the worst to happen powerless. That night sitting in the center of a possible crossfire of 7 guns forever convinced me that more is better. You can think whatever you like.

 

[Ash]

You do know, of course, that in combat, York was actually shooting at men in a great battle and they for the most part did not know he was here, right? When he took the men prisoner, he was armed and his prisoners were surrendered as they were convinced they were under a larger force. It's a poor example. All the combat examples cited are poor because they are generally from enhanced or prepared defensive positions. In effect, the defender holds all the cards.

In the case of an ambush with men who seek your death, the game is over. Mob hits are a wonderful example of that.

In the case of the grandpa, the example is also bad because first of all, they were trying to rape his granddaughter and their attention was diverted and second, he was shot multiple times while he shot back. His survival is entirely because of the luck of bullet impact and not because of round count.

None of that in any way makes your way better than mine. Which is a man cannot adequately defend myself against attack with 6 rounds.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by orionengnr:

To address the OP's question...seven rounds are fine. Eight is a little bit better, nine is...you get the idea.

That is in line with my judgment. I would substitute "will likely prove to be" for "are".

But too many people take that to an extreme, and conflate the ability to carry 19 rounds with the ability to place 19 rounds...

I'm not sure about the latter part of that, but I do agree with the idea that many people do take it to an extreme.

I carry eight. I cannot predict how well I would be able to place them in a real hurry against a moving target under real stress. Nor can I say what others think.

Posted by Ash:

In the case of an ambush with men who seek your death, the game is over.

One more time, an ambush is by definition a surprise attack--an unexpected violent encounter.

If you are accosted by men who want your car or your money and who are willing to kill you for it if that proves necessary, do you really expect them to announce their intentions in advance?

Until that simple question on occurred to me, I had not grasped the reason why Rob Pincus entitled his book Counter Ambush: The Science of Training for the Unexpected Defensive Shooting. I strongly recommend it.

Though the book covers many other things, one can get some good insight about how violent criminal attacks are often carried out, by whom, and for what reasons, along with ideas about how to react and how not to, from Marc MacYoung's In the Name of Self-Defense: What it costs. When it's worth it. It does address mob hits, and it is current enough to include the "knockout game". It is an eyeopener. It's lengthy and it is a tough read, but I think it is worth it.

 

[Al Thompson]

Fastbolt's and Kleanbore's most excellent posts wraps this one up nicely.