Is 6 Shots Really Enough?

[marcclarke]

No, but most guys carrying revolvers actually think speed loaders and speed strips are useful, therefore they're not limited to six shots.

Can you please cite any documented examples where a civilian with CCW reloaded his revolver during a gun fight and then won the gun fight?

From all that I have read, a civilian with a CCW wins or loses the gun fight with only the rounds he had in his handgun when the attack began.

 

[420Stainless]

So if NYPD officers need more than 7 shots to stop violent attackers greater than 1/3 of the time, why would innocent civilians who likely have no body armor, no radio, no partner, no cover units, no less lethal options, no duty belt with extra magazines, yet who are being confronted by the same violent felons as the police need less ammunition than the NYPD officers?

Most likely because the bad guys are determined to get away from the police and the police are determined not to let them get away. While I can't be certain that six shots are enough, I've not read of many, or even any, armed confrontations between innocents and criminals that involved protracted engagements where the defender emptied his gun in vain as the attackers pressed forth to overwhelm him. It certainly could happen in crimes of passion where the attacker doesn't care if he dies and probably even wants to die, or if defending something of extreme value. Seems highly unlikely as the bad guys always (if the news reports are true) run for their lives when they realize someone is shooting at them or is about to.

Of course your odds are better that you won't run out of ammo if you carry higher capacity weapons and plenty of additional ammunition. It is just an individual decision as to whether those odds are significant enough to carry the extra weight and bulk everywhere you go. For me, I believe there is an extremely small (probably less than 1%) additional amount of safety that exists between 6 not being enough and 18 being enough and that it is not worth the daily sacrifice. Others don't view it as any sacrifice at all and that is not a bad attitude to have. If I had a different occupation or hung out with a different crowd I might very well re-evaluate those odds.

 

[Warp]

Most likely because the bad guys are determined to get away from the police and the police are determined not to let them get away.

Are you saying the officers involved in all of those >7 round OIS's were shooting at suspects that were trying to flee, not shooting as subjects that were shooting at the officers?

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

Have YOU been in a gunfight? How many hits did you get?

I was the only one with a gun. The other guy had a knife. Two shots, two hits. I did get cut up some before I fired.

ECS

Sent from my little slice of Heaven.

 

[420Stainless]

Are you saying the officers involved in all of those >7 round OIS's were shooting at suspects that were trying to flee, not shooting as subjects that were shooting at the officers?

I don't know the particular facts, but yes. I would guess that most criminals would not shoot at a police officer if their intent is to surrender once confronted by them. Even if not, their mindset must tell them that they will be followed by the police if they attempt to flee unless it is one of those places where laws limit the ability of the police to chase. If the choice is fight or jail, many would be much more inclined to fight than if the choice is fight or get away. They generally will not be followed by their civilian victim if they attempt to flee. Indeed, if a civilian presses the fight after the criminal ceases to pose an immediate threat, the civilian is now in violation of the law in many circumstances in most states.

Now if your question means am I implying that police are shooting criminals in the back as they run away? - no! They are shooting at criminals that are attempting to fight thier way out of capture and prosecution.

Edit - Having just re-read your question, no I am not implying that the police are shooting multiple rounds at someone who is not threatening them or shooting at them. I am implying that the dynamic is different in a police/criminal confrontation than it is in a civilian/criminal confrontation. The police have an obligation to apprehend the criminal and protect the public safety. Therefore, they are entirely more likely to get into a protracted shootout with criminals than a civilian is since the bad guy knows that if he runs away from the civilian before the police get to the scene there is a good chance that he will escape capture and prosecution for the crime.

 

[Warp]

I don't know the particular facts, but yes. I would guess that most criminals would not shoot at a police officer if their intent is to surrender once confronted by them. Even if not, their mindset must tell them that they will be followed by the police if they attempt to flee unless it is one of those places where laws limit the ability of the police to chase. If the choice is fight or jail, many would be much more inclined to fight than if the choice is fight or get away. They generally will not be followed by their civilian victim if they attempt to flee. Indeed, if a civilian presses the fight after the criminal ceases to pose an immediate threat, the civilian is now in violation of the law in many circumstances in most states.

Now if your question means am I implying that police are shooting criminals in the back as they run away? - no! They are shooting at criminals that are attempting to fight thier way out of capture and prosecution.

Edit - Having just re-read your question, no I am not implying that the police are shooting multiple rounds at someone who is not threatening them or shooting at them. I am implying that the dynamic is different in a police/criminal confrontation than it is in a civilian/criminal confrontation. The police have an obligation to apprehend the criminal and protect the public safety. Therefore, they are entirely more likely to get into a protracted shootout with criminals than a civilian is since the bad guy knows that if he runs away from the civilian before the police get to the scene there is a good chance that he will escape capture and prosecution for the crime.

That is a reasonable position to hold.

 

[winter1857]

“The best gun for anyone: One that he, or she, will actually carry, practice with, and be willing and able to effectively use.” -- Linoge

 

[OleReb]

Usually I carry a 1911 with 8 rounds and I feel fine with that,i have carried revolvers with 6 and also was fine with that. I practice a lot with my carry guns and feel that as long as your proficient a low capacity count is fine,most criminals aren't going to get into a dragged out gun fight with you.

 

[gym]

In days of old, I felt comfortable for 22 years walking around with a model 60 and a speed loader. Or my walther, "never carried a spare mag".
When I moved here to FL in the early 90's, everyone had a freaking Glock, everyone. All of a sudden the entire world was speaking of multiple attackers, or perpitrators. "guys who never even fired a gun in NYC" were strapping a Glock 23, or 19 with 2 spare mags. I suddenlly felt out gunned, It was a psycologically implanted theory. In reality, you can carry 100 rounds on you, but you will never get a chance to use more than a few. I admit I bought a model 23 "when they first came out, and a 27, 30 etc. But they were very cool guns at the time and still today.
Today we kind of went back to the 6-10 round single stack pistol. "Like the walther" was back then. It is unlikelly you will ever need more than 5 rounds, but far from impossible" i carry an XDS now with a spare extended mag or 2 on my waist. When you are in a gunfight, people don't hang out and trade shots, they run like hell, usually out a door or window, but anything can happen. For 5 years I was just carrying 2 guns, 2 small guns. But that got tired also. I feel that my glock 26, or S&W 9c is the perfect small gun, "just a bit thick, I will still carry that also if I am going out late or into Miami. It's just the full size 1911 I don't ever carry anymore. It's just too darn big for down here in the heat.
Having been in a gun battle, I would never want to run out of ammo, as that would be foolish,and if you lived through it you would never get over it, so whatever you need to do to prevent that from happening is what you should remember to prepare for, possiblly 2 speed strips or speed loaders, or 2 mags.

 

[Catpop]

Still kinda keeps floating back to accuracy ( being able hit what you aim at)

 

[barnbwt]

In reality, you can carry 100 rounds on you, but you will never get a chance to use more than a few.

That's the one line that should settle this debate. D ) Carry as many rounds as you can fire in the amount of time you expect to remain alive while in "imminent bodily peril." If you can truly empty or reload those two extra magazines in the five or fewer seconds max you would be actually aiming at something, by all means carry them. But as civvies we aren't allowed to use suppressive fire, and it's comical to think you'd have time to fire many rounds at all at an attacker who is, by definition of "self defense," actively engaged in your destruction simultaneously.

I ran the numbers once for one and two attackers shooting back at the same rate and with the same skill as the victim. I assumed two hits were necessary for each part to be out of the fight. IIRC, survival odds were 70% after the first round, ~20% the second, <5% after the third exchange of bullets, and 2% after that (by the fourth volley, if the shooter was still alive, odds were the second attacker was no more and the odds loss flattened out as the fight became "fairer.")

Odds were infinitesimal that the fight would continue after 6 volleys (both for needing that round to stop an attacker who himself only had a 10% chance of survival, and for the defender still surviving). The biggest factor in survival, btw, was accuracy percentage, not hit rate. It's possible to be twice as accurate as someone, another to pull the trigger twice as fast as him and still shoot as effectively. With twice the chance of a hit as the bad guys, the odds were closer to 50% survival after the second volley. Practice is a good thing

Oh, yeah, with even three attackers, odds of survival went something like 10, 2, >0. If you survive an encounter with three shooters, it's they who did something wrong, not you who did something right

It was a fun math/game theory experiment, and one who's conclusions were even more obvious than I expected them to be; a gunfight only lasts a few seconds (even if interrupted), chance of survival is slim but higher than if you were unarmed, and is hugely stacked in the bad guy's favor because he will probably get to shoot first if he gets to shoot at all (and the fight is on his turf, on his time table, etc.). No matter how I played with the figures, odds of survival dropped rapidly until only one attacker remained, and odds of survival were tiny after a half dozen rounds (unless I dropped hit % to around 10% for all involved ). Any advantage in (effective) rate of fire or accuracy over the attackers had a magnified effect, and the opposite even more so. We'd better hope we're never mugged by Jason Bourne and Leon the Professional

TCB

 

[Warp]

That's the one line that should settle this debate. D ) Carry as many rounds as you can fire in the amount of time you expect to remain alive while in "imminent bodily peril." If you can truly empty or reload those two extra magazines in the five or fewer seconds max you would be actually aiming at something, by all means carry them. But as civvies we aren't allowed to use suppressive fire, and it's comical to think you'd have time to fire many rounds at all at an attacker who is, by definition of "self defense," actively engaged in your destruction simultaneously.

And I think it's short sighted and narrow minded to believe that "self defense" is the only possible justified and necessary defensive use you may find for your carry gun.

While public shootings at malls, theaters, schools, churches, etc are indeed rare, they do happen. People other than yourself may also be under attack. For many of us it is entirely possible that we might use a carry gun in defense of another person or persons.

In other words, your "by definition, self defense" statement doesn't necessarily apply.

Which probably brings us right back to statistics and odds vs stakes. Odds are you'll never have a use like that. But odds are you'll never need a firearm defensively period. It seems clear to me that virtually ever law abiding carrier isn't playing the odds, but the stakes. Personal choices and preferences often arise based on exactly how deep into the odds a specific individual decides to go/prepare for.

 

[tomrkba]

Still kinda keeps floating back to accuracy ( being able hit what you aim at)

A more correct, but likely incomplete, statement is:

"Still kinda keeps floating back to accuracy under adverse conditions with any of the participants moving, using cover/concealment, shooting, and other factors."

In short, standing on the range shooting at a static target teaches the shooter how to accurately fire his or her weapon under very controlled conditions. This is the required foundation for any shooting discipline. Additional training and practice is required to teach the shooter how to hit a moving or static target (or portion of a target) while moving. He or she needs to be able to quickly assess the results of those hits while managing other possible threats.

 

[tomrkba]

And I think it's short sighted and narrow minded to believe that "self defense" is the only possible justified and necessary defensive use you may find for your carry gun.

Warp, your post is somewhat ridiculous.

"Self-defense" includes defense of other persons, unless prohibited by law (Texas has or had a provision that you could only use lethal force to defend people with whom you have a significant relationship). I include defense of other people in that term.

The whole "odds and stakes" argument is also silly. I carry because it is my right, not because of any possibility of violent attack. The mentality you seem to have or promote leads to the insanity of gun control we have today because it supports the position. It is a paradigm that promotes tyranny through the misuse of justifications for certain laws. We are certainly at the point in our history where "law" has replaced morality. Government justifies the morality of their actions through laws they created, rather than against the constitutional boundaries called rights. Government agents sneaking into someone's home to search it, without warrant or fear of reprisal, and then taking any evidence they find to a judge to get a warrant is blatantly unconstitutional. However, they point to a law as justification for the illegal behavior. Your mentality reinforces that position because a right must be justified through some means.

 

[Warp]

Warp, your post is somewhat ridiculous.

"Self-defense" includes defense of other persons, unless prohibited by law (Texas has or had a provision that you could only use lethal force to defend people with whom you have a significant relationship). I include defense of other people in that term.

The whole "odds and stakes" argument is also silly. I carry because it is my right, not because of any possibility of violent attack. The mentality you seem to have or promote leads to the insanity of gun control we have today because it supports the position. It is a paradigm that promotes tyranny through the misuse of justifications for certain laws. We are certainly at the point in our history where "law" has replaced morality. Government justifies the morality of their actions through laws they created, rather than against the constitutional boundaries called rights.

I have no idea what the heck you are talking about, and I REALLY have no clue how or why you claim that my mentality leads to gun control.

This has got to be the most off-the-wall response I have had in a long, long time.

 

[tomrkba]

I have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

You do not even realize what your position means.

Perhaps you should just "carry on" (as in, carry your gun quietly since you need to have it spelled out for you).

 

[Warp]

 

[tomrkba]

Not particularly. I'm still trying to decide whether or not to dump my M19 because it shoots that peashooter 357 Magnum round.

 

[golden]

Something always goes wrong

LOUISIANA,

Life sometimes goes wrong and if you need to defend yourself in a gunfight, life has already gone wrong and you should expect it to get worse!

My nightstand gun is a 15 shot 9m.m. with a 20 shot magazine in it, double action only without a manual safety and mounting a bright light on the rail.

When I go out, even if I have to carry a small auto, I carry a small, but bright flashlight and extra magazine for the pistol.

Why, because that old joke about it raining when you leave the jacket or umbrella at home seems to have happened more often than I can count.

In a gunfight, if you plan to settle it with 5 or 6 shots, you can expect to need 8 or 10. That may seem like overkill, but over 20 years in law enforcement has taught me that when it all goes wrong, it really does all go wrong.
Your single opponent that you expected, will have a partner. Your first shot that should have hit center mass will miss and the second guy will turn out to be wearing a kevlar vest or drunk as a skunk and not noticing any pain.

If you think I am exagerating, look at some of the police reports where officers were killed.
In Miami, many years ago, two officers were kill by an unarmed man who over powered one and used the officers own gun to shoot him and then his partner.
Or just ask those NYPD cops who shot at a guy at point blank at the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING gunfight. They hit 9 OTHER people as well.

My own experience was as a witness to a gunfight. Two Florida cops in BROWARD COUNTY were wrestling with a suspect in front of a restuarant. He made a gun grab and the other officer drew his gun and fired at 4 feet. He hit the bad guy 3 or 4 times and the first officer 1 time.
The happy ending was that the 1 shot that hit the first officer was a minor wound and the bad guy got all the major wounds. This took place in a manner of seconds in front of a LARGE WINDOWN in the front of a restuarant.

My point is that anything can go wrong and if you don't plan on it, it will go wrong.

For me, as many rounds as possible is a small price to pay. I do not need 50+ rounds, but 13 and 15 round mags are great things to have with you and 8 rounds in my SIG 232 beat 6 rounds in my S&W model 12.
I was first issued a S&W model 13. It was a nice gun to carry, but my private purchase GLOCK 19 meant 10 more rounds before I had to reload. It was no question which one to carry for me.

If I am wrong, then I have just wasted energy and money carrying extra ammo, if I am right, then 6 shots may not be enough.

And I do not believe I will be mugged or someone will break into my house, at least not again.

I did not plan for 2 guys to try to mug me in front of a major shopping mall, but my off duty gun turned out to be a great friend that night.
It was one of those "TURN AND RUN WHEN THEY KNOW THERE IS A GUN" expisodes, that not supposed to happen according to anti-gunners.

It is like buying insurance, it is better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

Good luck with your choice,

JIM

 

[RealGun]

I don't see or hear about many younger people dressing to conceal these days, so 6 or even 5 better be enough, because that's what the small guns in hefty calibers hold. Actually, the caliber is often compromised too.

As an owner of a Kahr PM40 (5+1), there is something to be said for a gun that can handle the caliber. Serious firepower in a small weapon can be a challenge to shoot well.

My other "little guy" is a DAO S&W .38 Special, +P capable, that holds only 5. While this might not be a primary gun, it certainly could be in a compromised carry situation. I like to think it qualifies as the "better than none" gun and easily a good backup. But you have to wear a certain amount of clothing to carry this stuff.

 

[dak0ta]

Let me put this in another light as well. Do we feel that 4+1 in a stock Remington 870 or 5+1 in a stock Mossberg 500 is enough?

 

[Warp]

Or just ask those NYPD cops who shot at a guy at point blank at the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING gunfight. They hit 9 OTHER people as well.

This is misleading.

I don't know that it's fair to the officers involved to say that they hit a person (with no more information given) because a fragment ricochet'd and they needed a band-aid.

*I added the "needed a band-aid" part myself, but several of the bystanders shot were by fragments from ricochets and from rounds that went through the gunmen.

And as we all know, accuracy on a moving target while moving while the target is armed and confronting you is a bit different than accuracy at the range.

 

[barnbwt]

If I am wrong, then I have just wasted energy and money carrying extra ammo, if I am right, then 6 shots may not be enough.

Darn right; there is no disadvantage to having too much ammo. But that doesn't detract from the argument that 6 rounds is plenty (which happens to be the topic of the thread). And to be fair the NYC cops, if I understand correctly, the wounded bystanders were hit by fragments of through-and-throughs and there were few misses, if any (I have my doubts having seen the officers' gyrations in the video whilst shooting, but that's the story I read somewhere). On a related note, the NYC gunman was "tactically" in the position of a defense-shooter; approached from behind by two guys with guns drawn and ready to kill. He didn't even get one shot off before being perforated. Had they been gang-bangers on a mission and he a Vet, I can't see it ending differently

I submit that 6 is enough, as shown by all but a handful of outlier incidents that make the news (we all know this, there is no need to post "stats" on rounds shot per shooting), simple game theory analysis that show rapidly diminishing odds of either needing or being able to use more than 6 rounds (in an already statistically slim event, no less), and historical precedent showing lo-cap handguns to have been more than sufficient for defensive purposes. It's not how many rounds you need for a fight; that number is infinite--it's how many you'll get with the circumstances you're dealt. A defender is on the defensive; he is struck first, he must react, the circumstances are not his choosing, and he will either overcome the assault almost immediately, or will be struck down in short order. Neither outcome necessitates high capacity or large numbers of magazines. But hey, you just might need them after all, right? That's why my 357 has 8 chambers

LEO/.MIL needs are different, since they are frequently engaged in offensive or organized conflicts, where all the stakes are higher, and the rules of engagement looser (most notably the use of suppressive/indirect fire). And those organizations typically employ rifles anyway when trouble is expected

It is statistically proven that threads titled "Are Six Shots Enough" yield more replies than "Are 8 Shots Enough" or "Are 5 Shots Enough"
TCB

 

[X-Rap]

Wow you laid that out like Chuckie Schumer. I understand now, we civilians just don't need to much capacity.

 

[Tcruse]

"I don't know that it's fair to the officers involved to say that they hit a person (with no more information given) because a fragment ricochet'd and they needed a band-aid."
The video showed a lot things that should have been done differently. The count of 9 came from the people that were treated by EMS and if memory serves several were transported to hospital. The police seemed to loose control and just emptied their guns in the general direction of the bad guy.