Is 5 or 6 really enough in today's world.

[Kleanbore]

Planning for "the most likely thing", sounds an awful lot like just planning and practicing to only kick people in the nuts in a fist fight.

Or taking an umbrella while leaving a heavy coat behind.

 

[Blue Jays]

"…Or taking an umbrella while leaving a heavy coat behind…"

When it is 90* F. with nearly 100% relative humidity it makes sense to travel light. Not only discard the traditional tan belted raincoat yet even the comparatively lightweight GoreTex shell, too. Otherwise the wearer is overloaded, uncomfortable, and now soaked with sweat instead of just clean rainwater.

In that scenario, opting for just the lightweight umbrella is optimal.
That is why posters are saying full-size sidearms with multiple reloads are not always the preferred path.

 

[aaaaa]

There's a reason these threads go on for 8 pages and counting with people not changing their minds. When I lived in the Chicago area I would question the wisdom of someone who carried a revolver as assaults by multiple assailants are common. I've heard all the arguments about situational awareness and how facing multiple assailants is a no win situation regardless of how many rounds you carry, but the fact is that if you're facing multiple attackers and can't escape, more capacity is better. That's one perspective. We moved to a small Wisconsin town a year and a half ago with no homicides 20 of the last 22 years. There were 10 one year and 13 another and no gang problems. If this is all you've experienced believing a 5 or 6 round revolver is sufficient is understandable. That's the other perspective I've seen. Good luck trying to get people who have only experienced one or the other to agree.

Maybe, just maybe, if they made a revolver in 12 gauge with 5 shots, 5 might be enough?

 

[wayneinFL]

"You cannot prepare for everything, only the likely thing!"

I'm not sure why this keeps getting quoted as "most" likely thing.

Everybody has a sliding scale of what they think is likely. In the town I used to live in a 100# piece of ice fell off a plane and crushed some woman's living room chair.

I'm sitting in a chair completely oblivious to the fact a piece of ice could fall off a plane and come through my roof. I'm not prepared for everything.

If multiple attackers come into my house right now, my 32 revolver isn't going to do much good. Hopefully I can get to my BHP or AR by then.

And I'm not bothering with a full size pistol and 15 rounds outside the house, either. Attacks from multiple attackers are not so likely that I'm not willing to leave my house without a full size gun.

If someone else wants to manage their risk differently they're free to do so.

 

[.38 Special]

Planning for "the most likely thing", sounds an awful lot like just planning and practicing to only kick people in the nuts in a fist fight.

Ive never understood not trying to prepare for the unexpected, or difficult, and only focusing on the one or two things that you do well, and/or are told to expect. All that does is severely limit you, and anything out of the norm will likely be a big challenge.

The idea is, or at least to me the idea is, to try and be as well versed in all sorts of things, so, even if its not something you might get, its still probably going to be close enough to something youve done before in practice in the past, and youre able to adapt to things without having to try and wing it, and/or going into vapor lock.

And again, its all about being prepared, not just having a gun. One gives you a chance, the other is just weight.

Well, kicking someone in the balls is actually a pretty good plan for a fistfight. The folks at Krav Maga have pretty much built a curriculum around it!

In all seriousness, though, few if any of us have anything against a fellow who plans for even the most unlikely scenario. The argument really is about folks who are planning for unlikely events vs. folks who plan for extremely unlikely events. To carry on with the "umbrella" line, it's a bunch of people in the desert saying "I feel like carrying an umbrella every time I leave the house is adequate", and a bunch of other people in the desert saying "If you don't carry an umbrella, a raincoat, and an inflatable life raft, you're probably going to drown. Idiot."

Combined with the folks using math to prove that people without life rafts will drown in the desert, and the one guy arguing that life rafts are gonna get banned because some people don't see the need for them in the desert, you end up with some very strange threads.

 

[Kleanbore]

When it is 90* F. with nearly 100% relative humidity

I did not make my point well.

Cold wether may be likely. Slippery roads requiting chains may be likely. There is a risk of running out of fuel. I may need more food than I had anticipated. I may wish that I had a gun.

It would make not sense to assess which is the most likely and to prepare only for that one.

We should assess all of the significant risks in terms of likelihood, severity of potential consequences, and feasibility of mitigation, and mitigate any of them as we deem prudent. Not just one.

 

[wcwhitey]

@Kleanbore

“We should assess all of the significant risks in terms of likelihood, severity of potential consequences, and feasibility of mitigation, and mitigate any of them as we deem prudent. Not just one.”

Glad you agree with me! That is what I have been saying! It’s a lifestyle that requires more than one tool!

 

[trackskippy]

Well, kicking someone in the balls is actually a pretty good plan for a fistfight. The folks at Krav Maga have pretty much built a curriculum around it!

In all seriousness, though, few if any of us have anything against a fellow who plans for even the most unlikely scenario. The argument really is about folks who are planning for unlikely events vs. folks who plan for extremely unlikely events. To carry on with the "umbrella" line, it's a bunch of people in the desert saying "I feel like carrying an umbrella every time I leave the house is adequate", and a bunch of other people in the desert saying "If you don't carry an umbrella, a raincoat, and an inflatable life raft, you're probably going to drown. Idiot."

Combined with the folks using math to prove that people without life rafts will drown in the desert, and the one guy arguing that life rafts are gonna get banned because some people don't see the need for them in the desert, you end up with some very strange threads.

If your whole plan is to kick "everyone" in the balls, its not going to work out too well.

And its not planning for "any" scenario, its working on things, that no matter how outlandish they may seem, your brain has all manner of things in the box that are familiar to it, so it can more easily just grab what it needs and is familiar with and go with the flow when things start to go south, and let you focus on the target and shooting, without having to think about how to do it. The whole point is to be flexible and adaptable, and as seamless as possible with that. You dont get that just doing the same one or two old things, over and over, and thinking it will cover anything you might get.

And by exploring all the different and difficult things you can in practice, you also up pretty quick, that when things start getting a bit more complicated, the round counts tend to start going up, especially when you understand that a few hits on a paper target that "score" well in practice, may not at all impress a real person, and you may have to keep shooting to get them down. 5 or 6 rounds can go pretty quickly if you arent shooting as well as you do when its easy, you have to shoot in ways you've never shot before, or the bad guy soaks them up and keeps coming, ect.

 

[.38 Special]

If your whole plan is to kick "everyone" in the balls, its not going to work out too well.

And its not planning for "any" scenario, its working on things, that no matter how outlandish they may seem, your brain has all manner of things in the box that are familiar to it, so it can more easily just grab what it needs and is familiar with and go with the flow when things start to go south, and let you focus on the target and shooting, without having to think about how to do it. The whole point is to be flexible and adaptable, and as seamless as possible with that. You dont get that just doing the same one or two old things, over and over, and thinking it will cover anything you might get.

And by exploring all the different and difficult things you can in practice, you also up pretty quick, that when things start getting a bit more complicated, the round counts tend to start going up, especially when you understand that a few hits on a paper target that "score" well in practice, may not at all impress a real person, and you may have to keep shooting to get them down. 5 or 6 rounds can go pretty quickly if you arent shooting as well as you do when its easy, you have to shoot in ways you've never shot before, or the bad guy soaks them up and keeps coming, ect.

I'm honestly not sure how any of that applies. Carrying a revolver does not make one inflexible or unadaptable, and conjuring up training scenarios which require high round counts does nothing to address the fact that very few real-life encounters require the same. Again, folks are welcome to carry high cap autos (I do myself) but I still haven't seen any really convincing arguments for it.

 

[aaaaa]

Well, kicking someone in the balls is actually a pretty good plan for a fistfight. The folks at Krav Maga have pretty much built a curriculum around it!

Guess the BGs know that too so part of our preparedness, should we be wearing a cup when we go out?

 

[Kleanbore]

training scenarios which require high round counts does nothing to address the fact that very few real-life encounters require the same.

Training is not about scenarios. It is about developing skills.

Very few people ever have to defend themselves against criminal attackers. But when they do....

 

[armoredman]

Deleted for various reasons.

 

[cslinger]

Just because somebody is perfectly comfortable carrying a 5 shot revolver doesn’t mean they feel that one should ONLY BE ALLOWED a 5 shot revolver. There are plenty of folks who love and collect lever guns and that doesn’t mean they think nobody should have an AR.

Everybody makes a personal risk assessment and ….. they pays their monies and takes their chances. Doesn’t make them wrong for them it just might make it wrong for you.

Now if somebody is saying YOU SHOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED X, Y or Z then that’s a problem.

Do I personally think a J-Frame is enough……probably in the vast majority of cases. Do I think one is handicapping themself with one yeah I do but like I said everybody makes there own personal risk assessment and acts accordingly and if they are WRONG they may pay the price, but hell I could have a box full of ammo on me and still get killed when the extractor spring craps the bed.

you are not wrong if you are comfortable with 5-6 rounds, nor are you wrong is nothing less then 2 or 3 17 round mags will do.

I mean hell I carry a pocket knife and a flashlight more often than not …… I am damn near suicidal. . I AM NOT SAYING EVERYBODY SHOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO CARRY A KNIFE!!

Take care, shoot safe.
Chris

 

[Kleanbore]

No, I'm not Jerry - he carries a 45 ACP revolver with full moon clips,

I believe that he carries a semi-auto....

 

[redcon1]

I think what is important here is that we A.) retain the right to carry whatever the heck we feel we need to carry to be safe in our environment and B.) always keep the enemy guessing. But carry on.

 

[armoredman]

I believe that he carries a semi-auto....

Pardon me, I should have clarified, he used a Smith and Wesson 45 ACP revolver for his world record setting demonstration of speed shooting and reloading, with full moon clips, as he has shown in some of his later videos. As for the man himself, I would be glad to buy him several beers just to listen to him reminisce.

 

[.38 Special]

Very few people ever have to defend themselves against criminal attackers. But when they do....

When they do... what? We've been over this, repeatedly. Show me all those videos of CCW holders engaged in pitched battles, emptying their autos and reloading, and I'll reconsider.

 

[CDW4ME]

Recent incidents with more than one attacker:

Now everybody can envision the possibility of having more that one attacker, right? Nooo, I aint that naïve.

How this works... For someone content with low capacity or content with the notion of a single attacker, none of those count.
Possible reasons they don't count and this list is woefully incomplete:
-They don't work at a gas station
-In one the 2nd was a girl and she don't count
-They don't work at Dollar store
-They don't meet people to sell cars
-They don't live in Philly or Houston

A dozen examples won't matter because it wasn't their area, they don't do ____, they don't go to _____, criminals are immobile, psychic ability, ....
I aint wrong.
View attachment 1128019

Don’t ever fly in a plane, drive a car, walk in the rain because 4 incidents, possibly a hundred more do not make the odds greater by any significant level based on a population of over 300,000, 000! You cannot prepare for everything, only the likely thing! A pack of Hyenas can take down the strongest Lion. Having 16 shots is a small factor when engaging multiple targets. Do you have the skill set to even attempt to clear a room? Maybe you do but you would be in the minority!

I said a dozen wouldn't matter, I like the honesty that a hundred wouldn't matter.
Content with low capacity cites odds, which I left off my "woefully incomplete" list.
Increased capacity is a "small factor" when engaging multiple targets. LOL

Sig 365 vs snub - they are about the same size - 11 rounds vs 5
https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/smith-wesson-model-442-vs-sig-sauer-p365

Often rationalizing low capacity snub is really about unrequired shirt tucking and limiting oneself to pocket carry, Ruger LCP Max because muh pocket.
11 rounds in package that is smaller and lighter than the snub.
https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/smith-wesson-model-442-vs-ruger-lcp-max

 

[GEM]

My point that the rhetoric that you don't need more that a few rounds in SD and only a wannabee rambo, would want to carry more and/or a reload comes from some of the posts we see here.

Higher intensity incidents never happen,
I can reload from speed loaders but with a carry set up that is not conducive to normal concealed carry. See how fast Jerry is.
I shoot just fine and never miss on the square range.

However, Jerry is that fast because of practicing with thousands of rounds a month. I have a friend who was consistently 2nd place after Jerry. He fired thousands a month. He also carried a Glock for EDC. There is no argument that if you compare size a 686 gives nothing in an advantage as compared to the Glock 19 or similar sized guns for EDC.

The mantra about SD not needing more is exactly and repeatedly quoted in legislative discussions and court cases that propose and then support AWBs and mag bans. The cases are clearly out there. They continue that only nuts want more. Rampaging lunatics, political fanatics and criminals want more. That is not my rhetoric. AWBs and mag bans are becoming more popular in states - until Clarence and company, if ever, get off the pot.

So that's my caution against pushing this discussion as you support such bans. Are you a nut, I have no idea. Argue they are not needed and the bans make sense. There is scholarly research (debated) that mag bans save lives in states that have such by reducing the body count. Why, you can tackle the nut at reload or more frequent jams (as more reloads and those can lead to jams).

Revolvers are fun. Pocket revolvers make dress restriction and NPe sense but the smaller semis are becoming competitive. Folks have fought with a protected themselves with BP, SAA and now DA revolvers. However, the semi is a better fighting gun for more intensive scenarios. That's why the militaries and police have ditched them in the vast majority of cases. You may never use your gun or only face one economically motivated opponent, So what - that doesn't make the revolver a better belt carried EDC choice.

That's really all there is to it.

 

[wcwhitey]

I said a dozen wouldn't matter, I like the honesty that a hundred wouldn't matter.
Content with low capacity cites odds, which I left off my "woefully incomplete" list.
Increased capacity is a "small factor" when engaging multiple targets. LOL

Sig 365 vs snub - they are about the same size - 11 rounds vs 5
https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/smith-wesson-model-442-vs-sig-sauer-p365

Often rationalizing low capacity snub is really about unrequired shirt tucking and limiting oneself to pocket carry, Ruger LCP Max because muh pocket.
11 rounds in package that is smaller and lighter than the snub.
https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/smith-wesson-model-442-vs-ruger-lcp-max

A little background! My carry guns in order of size are as follows: LCP, S&W 638/640, Kahr CM9, Sig 239, Sig 226 for auto. For a half dozen years a K frame .38. Plenty of tools in my kit! Been carrying a pistol 24/7 since 1990 long before most places even allowed concealed carry or it was popular. Mostly it was on a professional basis and what I carried was dictated by policy. I have never nor would I make the claim what is best for anyone, it is a completely individual proposition. For me personally I carry as a retired gentleman who occasionally does some security contracting. I have a CCW in the state of NY and am one of the few who can still carry over 10 rounds (a whole different topic). However, I travel all over the East Coast under HR218. Doing such I have to obey all local laws of the states i which I travel which include things like no hollow points in NJ, various capacity rules in other places as well. It can be involved keeping up with all the laws as they evolve. I have had to carry an Sig 226 with 10 round magazines with Hornady Critical Defense because the ballistic tip is not considered a HP for NJ and more than 10 in some places where my travels took me. It can be totally nuts at times. Lately very difficult with all the current changes and court cases.
It takes some effort and research to stay in the letter of the law. So the easy thing to do is stay proficient with a good firearm like the 239 which is 8+1 carry the Critical Defense and make sure I am as on point with my choice. Do I ever feel unsafe because of that, absolutely not.
With the exception of flip flops and shorts I carry the 638 in my day to day. Why, because a J Frame revolver has been on my person for decades on of off duty, in a jacket pocket or vest holster along with the Sig 226. I have tens of thousands of rounds practice in training and muscle memory entrenched in my brain. I trust it and can shoot the hell out of it. With speed strips (my choice) or speed loaders (something I rarely carry) Incan can recharge that revolver with efficiency, even under stress which has been proven.
So there is my situation, I am sure it is unlike most. I am sure there are many who have been carrying for a long time as well. I am also sure there are a bunch who have just started and reading this as I must have the latest high capacity Shotshow 2023 debutante. It’s simply not true. Any system will provide s measure of security and self preservation as long as a person trains and understands the limitations of what they have chosen. A person has to be honest and evaluate their environment and needs and capabilities. When someone makes the argument that they chose xYz the first thing I look for is their reasoning behind the choice. If it’s lazy and a person chooses capacity as a crutch I shake my head. If for the same reason they chose a J frame and limit themselves to 5 shots I see that as a mistake. If after a person trains and after serious consideration and choses a pistol no matter the gun that fits that security plan I see a person who has made a good step into ensuring their safety. A person that has placed themselves far above the average citizen.
I have no issue with the concept of a person having as many rounds as they can carry. As long as it’s an educated choice and not some tacticool fantasy I am good with that. Flip side is the choice of a 5 Shot snub is as valid as any if that fits a person needs.

 

[GEM]

If you accept that the gun is basically a limited capacity gun and not optimal for the rare but more intensive event, that's fine. It is the acknowledgement of that which makes its carry reasonable you accept the risk.

Since we know that the smaller guns are harder to shoot (by empirical research) and that training is needed for using them, that is too the good.

Studies show most carriers never train at all. I've said that I carry a J when conditions constrain it. I accept it's limitations. Yes, you should practice reloads but there's no argument that semi reloads are faster on average.

 

[sgt127]

Couple guys, with no real world experience, rambling on…..

 

[trackskippy]

Studies show most carriers never train at all.

And how many posting here fit that bill, and are telling us that 5 or 6 is all youll ever need because that's what they choose to carry, and based on what?

Considering the average hit ratio for supposedly "trained" police is something like 35% these days, which is up about 10% from the 25% back in the revolver days. Apply that math to your carry gun, and then factor in your "actual" skill level, and what do you think you'll have?

Couple guys, with no real world experience, rambling on…..

LOL. Yea thats a fair "apples to apples" comparison.


I just came across this video in a thread here in the Strategies section. (https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/competitive-shooter-in-sd-shooting.914968/)

This is a direct link to it on YouTube.



Supposedly a high-level competitive shooter against a couple of guys trying to rob him. Put yourself in his place and with your skill levels, with what you carry, and how well do you think you would make out?

Oh, he fired a tad more than 5 or 6 rounds too, and Im also betting he was probably a tad above the 35% hit level too.

And towards the end, and like whats been posted here a couple of times, the narrator commented that he has never seen a reload done in a civilian gun fight in all the videos hes done the breakdowns on, but he also said if this guy had a gun with a lesser capacity, it wouldnt likely have ended as it did.

 

[wayneinFL]

If you want to use that youtube video as an example, the guy came from his business and involved himself In robbery across the street. He didn't just bumble into this situation. There's no reason he couldn't have picked up a full size pistol or an AR or shotgun for that matter.

Just like I'm carrying a 6 shot revolver and if someone started something across the street, I'd grab a full size pistol or a rifle before going outside.

 

[Kleanbore]

Couple guys, with no real world experience, rambling on…..

Are you somehow under the impression that persons with real worlds experience, such as Delf Bryce and Jim Cirillo, developed their shooting skills in actual combat, or that it is likely for anyone to do so?