italianbreadman
Member
I believe that 2 shots will be enough for any situation I'm at all likely to encounter. I like 5+, though.
Is 6 Shots Really Enough?
- Thread starter LouisianaGunner12
- Start date
- Status
IMO a Glock 23 makes a better carry gun for many people than a GP100.
I know I carry my Glock 19 a lot more than I carry my GP100.
But then again even my Glock 21 conceals (slightly) better than my GP100.
I'm going to end one more sentence with the word GP100.
bobinoregon
Member
If you haven't hit your target in six you are most likely never going to need any extras. 15-20 misses don't count for much.
This is very shortsighted and shows a lack of understanding of how things often work/happen in the real world.
Hitting your target/attacker with a handgun doesn't necessarily mean they will no longer be a threat. It may take multiple hits to stop an attacker. And that's just one attacker.
Then, consider that the average citizen firing in self defense or LEO firing in the line of duty has a hit rate of something like 20%.
Good thing I don't use personal attacks.
I see nothing wrong with stating that a person's opinion, in my opinion, shows a lack of understanding of the topic.
But on topic...do you agree or disagree with what I said?
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
I have to say that I though there must have been some moderation/deletion when I saw someone pulled the personal attack card.
What you stated in post 454 is as spot on as it gets. I think some of these people are delusional at best when they make statements like those in post 453.
What you stated in post 454 is as spot on as it gets. I think some of these people are delusional at best when they make statements like those in post 453.
No modding/deletion.
And what I said in post 454 (which hasn't changed or been change at all) is precisely why I, personally, carry a Glock 26 or 'more' 99% of the time. My answer to the question seems to be "6 would probably be enough, but maybe not, and since I can carry significantly more than 6 easily, I do"
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
I'm with you, I too carry a 26 or a 19 and usually a spare. The numbers are convincing to some and just the opposite for others. I have and do at times carry a J frame or 380 but I don't try to live in the illusion that it equals the 26 or 19 because it doesn't and I understand it is a compromise.
your posts make total sense to me warp, and further, i see nothing even closely resembling a personal attack.
i occasionally carry 3" gp100 when i'm in the mood, or headed to the backcountry. but 99% of the time, a g19 leaves the house with me in the morning. mostly because i'm both faster and more accurate with it.
i occasionally carry 3" gp100 when i'm in the mood, or headed to the backcountry. but 99% of the time, a g19 leaves the house with me in the morning. mostly because i'm both faster and more accurate with it.
tomrkba
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,370
I think it's due to a lack of training or training for self-defense. I've attended a few shooting courses that never covered what goes on in a fight. Some people mistake CCW, NRA Basic Pistol, and similar for "defensive" courses. Courses like SouthNarc's ECQC course are very eye-opening, if not ugly and appalling, to the average person who has never dealt with ruthless street scum.
Last edited:
tomrkba
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,370
It's frigging AWESOME, just amazing AWESOME in it's AWESOMENESS!
I like my Smith better, but it's nice to see some enthusiasm for a revolver.
Last edited:
Rom828
Member
A good friend of mine had three perps come into his pawn shop and start shooting. He returned fire with his Beretta. He had eighteen rounds when it started. He received multiple hits, one perp dead, one out of commission and one fled. He was lucky to survive and had two rounds left. He thinks I am crazy for just having a 1911 or revolver with me, but they are what I prefer.
Tony_the_tiger
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 905
The answer to the original post is:
Maybe.
Maybe.
Madcap_Magician
Member
Tony has the right of it.
Six shots is enough unless it isn't. Just like seven, fifteen, or thirty.
Six shots is enough unless it isn't. Just like seven, fifteen, or thirty.
Chilibreath
Member
Madcap, by gosh I think you got it! The fact is we never know ahead of time what the immediate future holds in the way of a zombie challenge; it may be one zombie or two or three or maybe more. But the fact is (and statistically speaking) most encounters will entail just one suspect, in which case each of us has to decide if we're comfortable rolling the dice with the stats or packing extra heat for the occasional zombie hoard that we may come across. Personally, there aren't too many known threats in my immediate area or at most of the places I travel to, so I feel comfortable with a 5-shot snubby. But if I lived in or worked in Detroit or some other hell hole then, yes, I would up the odds in my favor by carrying a bigger gun. I'm an average citizen not a Special Ops commando, so I carry accordingly ... otherwise if I tried to plan for ever conceivable scenario I would wind up strapping a full-up AR-15 to my back and hang a Glock 21 on each hip. I'm just saying.
Last week, I met a fellow behind the counter at a gun store who carries a beautiful old Detective Special. It had been his back-up gun when he was a policeman, starting about fifty years ago. Says he really believed in the value of that sixth shot, compared to the Chief's Special.
He still qualifies with a revolver.
We were discussing some Smith L-Frame revolvers in the case. A couple were seven shot models. I mused that they somehow don't look quite right to me, but the veteran officer said "I'll take as many shots as I can get."
About a year ago, reflecting upon John's statistical analysis caused me to retire my J-Frame as a primary carry piece. A Ruger SR9c took its place.
I did end up opting for the seven shot model of the L-Frame....
He still qualifies with a revolver.
We were discussing some Smith L-Frame revolvers in the case. A couple were seven shot models. I mused that they somehow don't look quite right to me, but the veteran officer said "I'll take as many shots as I can get."
About a year ago, reflecting upon John's statistical analysis caused me to retire my J-Frame as a primary carry piece. A Ruger SR9c took its place.
I did end up opting for the seven shot model of the L-Frame....
I know a lot of people who say they aren't a Special Ops commando, and they don't live in some hell hole third world nation with no law enforcement, and they aren't vigilantes, so they don't carry a gun.
Insinuating that people who carry a gun that holds more than 5-6 rounds are Special Ops commandos or live in a hell hole is no different than the people who insinuate that you are a wannabe Special Ops commando or live in a hell hole because you carry a gun (any gun).
Is "most" 51%, or 55%, or 60? Want to bet your life on it?
The likelihood that one will be attacked by a violent criminal actor on any one day is far less than remote. The likelihood that it will happen during one's lifetime, however, is much, much greater. And if it does happen, the likelihood that there will be more than one assailant is far from insignificant.
One must then figure in the severity of the potential consequences and consider whether it is prudent to try to mitigate the risk, and how.
So did I, before I really thought about it, but a subjective feeling of comfort is not a very useful commodity.
Chilibreath
Member
Ouch! I thought we had agreed to disagree?
Chilibreath
Member
Klean, I'm not without personal knowledge on this subject; I was a big city LEO (retired now) and I have seen and investigated the aftermath of many street muggings, assaults, stabbings and shootings. I was also (and still am) fairly handy with firearms, more so and especially handguns, so I'm comfortable with my previous post as well as my stance on when/how/what to carry. We are all different in our backgrounds and training, and the beauty of this subject is that there is really no right answer, nor is one answer more correct than another. I say pick and chose what you you like, and please afford me the same courtesy. In the end we all want the same thing: survival.
Chilibreath
Member
Thanks man, just trying to keep it real.
Actual statistics regarding civilian encounters are hard to come by; as Tom Givens points out in Lessons from the Street, they are seldom compiled. The closest thing to them that he could find relates to a few incidents involving under cover FBI agents.
There are a lot of data on police shootings, but police officer encounters are not really applicable--again from Givens, civilians do not make traffic stops, engage in drug busts, respond to robbery calls, go into bars to stop brawls, and so on. Lessons from the Street does provide a very small sample of data. The mean number of rounds was less than five shots, but the extreme was greater. In statistical analysis, distribution is important. Givens' advice is to carry a "real gun", adding that that means something with greater capacity than that of a five shot snubby. However, as I'll cover in a moment, I continued to carry a J-Frame on the basis of what I perceived my usual risk level to be.
Some time back, one of our members did provide some LEO-gathered data involving civilian shooting incidents in another city. See this. It's a small sample. For those incidents in which shots were fired, the mean number of shots fired was five, rounded. Three out of four of the incidents involved more than one violent criminal actor.
Where I live, virtually all of the home invasions, and the great majority of the street/parking lot attacks, car-jackings, and store and restaurant robberies reported in the news seem to involve two or more perps. Bank robberies are a notable exception; I do not recall seeing even one reported that involved more than one known robber.
Common sense tells me that any crook who can would choose to have someone else along--another pair of eyes, someone to distract the victims, someone to carry the loot, someone to drive, and so on.
It would not seem prudent to me to prepare for the single-assailant scenario.
Armed with that "knowledge", and with John's hits-vs-rounds analysis, when I got involved in one of these oft-occurring debates last year, I stated that when I was headed somewhere 'peaceful', I carried my J-Frame.
But someone challenged my reasoning. He asked why I would base a decision on what to carry on the likelihood of encountering trouble rather than on what would be needed should trouble occur. That was a brilliant application of conditional probability analysis, and it had somehow never occurred to me.
Within weeks, the J-Frame was replaced by the Ruger.
I do not expect to ever have to fire ten shots, or close to ten. But I can easily see firing three or four shots at a first charging assailant; I may have to use deadly force on a second; and I certainly do not relish the idea of ending up with an empty firearm.
The Ruger holds ten, plus one more if one insists. I would never argue against relying upon a Model 1911, however.
There are a lot of data on police shootings, but police officer encounters are not really applicable--again from Givens, civilians do not make traffic stops, engage in drug busts, respond to robbery calls, go into bars to stop brawls, and so on. Lessons from the Street does provide a very small sample of data. The mean number of rounds was less than five shots, but the extreme was greater. In statistical analysis, distribution is important. Givens' advice is to carry a "real gun", adding that that means something with greater capacity than that of a five shot snubby. However, as I'll cover in a moment, I continued to carry a J-Frame on the basis of what I perceived my usual risk level to be.
Some time back, one of our members did provide some LEO-gathered data involving civilian shooting incidents in another city. See this. It's a small sample. For those incidents in which shots were fired, the mean number of shots fired was five, rounded. Three out of four of the incidents involved more than one violent criminal actor.
Where I live, virtually all of the home invasions, and the great majority of the street/parking lot attacks, car-jackings, and store and restaurant robberies reported in the news seem to involve two or more perps. Bank robberies are a notable exception; I do not recall seeing even one reported that involved more than one known robber.
Common sense tells me that any crook who can would choose to have someone else along--another pair of eyes, someone to distract the victims, someone to carry the loot, someone to drive, and so on.
It would not seem prudent to me to prepare for the single-assailant scenario.
Armed with that "knowledge", and with John's hits-vs-rounds analysis, when I got involved in one of these oft-occurring debates last year, I stated that when I was headed somewhere 'peaceful', I carried my J-Frame.
But someone challenged my reasoning. He asked why I would base a decision on what to carry on the likelihood of encountering trouble rather than on what would be needed should trouble occur. That was a brilliant application of conditional probability analysis, and it had somehow never occurred to me.
Within weeks, the J-Frame was replaced by the Ruger.
I do not expect to ever have to fire ten shots, or close to ten. But I can easily see firing three or four shots at a first charging assailant; I may have to use deadly force on a second; and I certainly do not relish the idea of ending up with an empty firearm.
The Ruger holds ten, plus one more if one insists. I would never argue against relying upon a Model 1911, however.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
