"Like does matter", and other notes
I must ask some persons as to why they think like does not matter.. if a person likes something, they are likely to spend more time with it, to enjoy it, to get better at it. I can't help but think that one consideration for public employees miserable marksmanship is that they are issued one gun out of the rack, whether they like it or not, and must simply cope with operating something that someone else orders them to have, and not something that fits them. The gun has no connection to them, and vice-versa.
One reason I am gravitating back towards revolvers is that I am discovering that due to my hand, the K frame Model 15 and N frame 28 are joys to shoot, and shoot quickly, and shoot well. For some people, they love Glock 17s and prefer that platform because of a 'like' factor that I will not disparage. Some people 'like' the 1911 / Hi-Power / CZ-75, and I will not tell them they are wrong for having a personal preference that they indulge in. After all, why would a person 'date' another if they were not 'attracted to' (or, 'like') that person. Any relation in which one person dislikes the other is doomed. A gun that a person likes is more likely to be around when they need it, and more likely to be used well. Who do we know buys and drives cars they detest, rather than one they "like"?
I recently asked a friend to time me in draws and such and he noted that I am, in fact, faster and better with a Model 15 than I was with other systems, much as I enjoyed them, I really enjoy these revolvers, enjoy shooting them, handling, having them around... practicing and training and just wistful plinking is fun...
On a different note, I have to concur with Easyg, that perception played a large role in in governmentally funded groups going to larger ammunition reservoirs, rather than actual fact. I do not have the official stats in front of me, and I could use the help of others in researching this, but I do not recall governmental officers using dozens or hundreds of rounds in running gunfights in many instances at all prior to the switch from 6 to umpteen rounds. I honestly don't know.. some internet research indicated that when police carried wheelguns, before the 'high capacity mentality', the rounds fired were two, and the hit rate 80%, now that 'spray and pray' seems to have come in vogue, the number of rounds fired is much higher and the rounds hit much lower.
It reminds me of a police instructor, young fellow, who instructed us to begin firing the second the weapon left the holster, walk our fire into the threat and feel free as we had a lot of bullets and using them would put the odds in our favor. I am not in agreement with his philosophy, and I think a number here are not either, but there are those who exercise it..
Personally, I think I trust more to skill than to knowing I can miss x number of times, (I am not saying anyone is advocating missing) as a factor to be considered is that we private citizens are accountable for the rounds we fire, and we don't have a publicly funded legal office to defend us. What we spend on lawyers does not come from the taxpayer, it comes from our personal bank accounts. With stray bullets may come stray lawsuits.
Let me run a little though expirament, a small fancy, that comes to my mind when thinking about the capacity issue, especially in the light of some comments about potential adversaries armed with standard (standard for the weapon) capacities (15 for a Beretta M9, 30 for an AK-74, etc, as opposed to 30 for an M9 or 75 for an AK-74)....
Let us suppose we were situationally unaware (it happens), or were unprepared (also happens), and we are armed with, oh, a handgun of some sort...
Now, consider there are 3 attackers who are determined to kill or die, and are armed with Beretta M9s, and they begin firing at us (in this case, we are alone). Using JohnKSA's percentage of hits (30%), we are hit in the first volley, or, second, of firing. Assuming the criminals are hitting not 30% of the time, but 10%, we are hit in the third second, and third volley of fire. Assuming it takes about a second to get one aimed shot in defense against our determined 'kill or die' opponents, and using JohnKSa's analysis posted on another forum from some state's CCW's stats as the best case, we hit twice on one of three assailants, leaving two of them as they continue firing, not retreating at the sight, knowledge, suspicion, that they are being resisted, or consider that their comrade just got his virgin quota in heaven and want their own...
We are, at this point, already wounded or dead at the 3 second (third volley of three rounds each, or, 3 wounds in three seconds, depending)
Continuing on, we proceed to use our large ammunition reservoir to engage target #2, as they continue to fire on us, two rounds per volley, this time we somehow, as we are wounded, are able to use nine seconds to land two hits on target, in the time they fire 18 rounds and scoring from 1 to 6 more hits on us...
You see how this thought line is going..
Hence my thought that if we are indeed facing the 'Mumbai Jihad' attack, no matter the handgun, our odds are not good, and 6 or 60 will be of little avail.
However, if you are just facing down or defending against the common vermin, 6 or 60 will be more than enough, even using JohnKSa's CCW stats from another forum, which indicated that even with a norm of 2 or 3 attackers, less than 5 rounds was enough to 'win'.
My grandfather, from just after WWII till he passed on, carried a Smith and Wesson revolver, daily. Not once did he ever use it, yet carried it, day after day.. he had a presence about him, and was always perfectly willing to protect his wife and kids, house and business. Think about that in terms of the values of mindset and skillset and toolset. The common vermin know that body language, and avoid it. The Mumbai Jihad that some (including, to some extent, me) consider, won't care because they want to die. 2zulu1 is right about the usual opposition not wanting to learn about mortality....
Thanks to all