Minimum Acceptable Capacity For CCW

[Defensory]

I'll bite.

I had no doubt a number of people here would.

For me, I set round count pretty far down on the list in my priorities when looking for a defensive firearm. Many other factors carry greater weight (ie, fit to hand, pointability, ease of carrying, control layout, trigger quality, etc). If two choices rate equally high, except for round count, then I'd choose the gun that has the higher capacity. But such is not often the case for me.

There are NUMEROUS hi-cap semi-autos on the market that are more reliable, more ergonomic, more pointable, more accurate, have a noticeably superior maximum effective range etc.---compared to a 5-round snubbie. I've owned multiple snubbies in my time, so please don't bother trying to lecture me on their alleged capabilities.

So all those obvious advantages PLUS a high-cap mag make a semi-auto a no-brainer choice over a snubbie, or any revolver for that matter.

Not necessarily. When the bullets start flying, the average badguy probably doesn't want to get shot either.

Armed robberies of drug houses, gun shops, armored cars etc. occur fairly frequently---even though the victims were heavily armed and the perpetrators were well aware of that fact in advance.

A lot of these punk gangbangers out there don't have the sense God gave a goat, and they have no fear of shooting it out with an armed victim. Unfortunately, too many firearms forum Rambos think that all they have to do is brandish a gun and maybe pop off a round or two, and every thug in the world will run away with his tail between his legs.

What if the perps who attack you aren't "average"? What if they're crazy/mean as hell, and aren't afraid to shoot it out with you? If there's three of them with 40 rounds and you with 5, they've got an enormous advantage over you.

14 (13+1) rounds is better than 5, period. And there's a number of people like myself who have enough sense to carry two extra magazines for their hi-caps, which gives me 40 rounds of .45 ACP to work with.

Hmmmm. If I'm going up against three heavily armed perps in a home invasion or parking lot, do I want 40 rounds or 5? 40 or 5? That choice really doesn't require much thought, at least for me.

Gee, did you ever wonder why combat soldiers carry full 20 or 30-round magazines in their weapons and a couple extra full mags on their sides, rather than one 5-round magazine?

Did you ever wonder why virtually every major law enforcement agency/police department in the country has converted over to high-cap semi-autos in the last couple or so decades? As well as a sizable portion of the medium and small lea's/pd's.

When it comes to ammo for a weapon I count on to defend my life and the lives of my loved ones, more is better---period.

 

[mavracer]

There are NUMEROUS hi-cap semi-autos on the market that are more reliable, more ergonomic, more pointable, more accurate, have a noticeably superior maximum effective range etc.---compared to a 5-round snubbie. I've owned multiple snubbies in my time, so please don't bother trying to lecture me on their alleged capabilities.

who is lecturing seams you are.
I'm more of a literal guy sometimes I need to see somthing in real life so you bring your pocket carry ergonomic hi-cap auto(BTW it needs to fit in a normal blue jeans pocket) and we'll see who's gun is more reliable and accurate and first one to miss steel plates loses.

 

[1911Tuner]

What if the perps who attack you aren't "average"? What if they're crazy/mean as hell, and aren't afraid to shoot it out with you? If there's three of them

If that's the case, you're in way over your head anyway unless you hit first, hit hard, and unass the AO at or near the record for the 440 yard dash...no matter how many rounds your pistols holds and with a brace of spare mags on your belt...and about all you can hope for is God's help.

 

[jad0110]

If there's three of them with 40 rounds and you with 5, they've got an enormous advantage over you.

If there are 3 of them, and one of me, they've got an enormous advantage over me, regardless. In that situation, I would hope that my young age and long stride can carry me from that crappy fight.

There are NUMEROUS hi-cap semi-autos on the market that are more reliable, more ergonomic, more pointable, more accurate, have a noticeably superior maximum effective range etc.---compared to a 5-round snubbie. I've owned multiple snubbies in my time, so please don't bother trying to lecture me on their alleged capabilities.

Trust me, I'm different. I'm weird. I'm out of step with the times. I can shoot a S&W 642 better (on average) than a Glock 17, Springfield XD or Ruger P Series (among many others). Ergonomics are a highly personal thing, much like a pair of shoes. For me it seems, revolvers and 1911 platform firearms just work. Go figure. Shot placement is still key. For me, capacity is a certainly a nice bonus, a tie breaker if you will. More is better, yes. But I won't pick gun B over gun A simply because it holds X more rounds of ammunition, unless I can shoot gun B better, it fits my particular needs better, etc.

I buy cars the same way. It is the whole package, not just mpg, 0-60, 1/4 mile times or lateral acceleration numbers. So I may choose a slower car that gets slightly lower mpg if that car "fits" me and "talks" to me better. Not a perfect analogy, but it'll do.

As for reliability, I would say that the reliability gap has certainly closed over time, though in the realm of pocket guns, snubs are pretty darn reliable (though certainly not 100% malfunction free). Proper maintenance and care figures much more prominently in my mind. I've had problems with both platforms, but for the record, the reliability edge in my safe goes to my wheelies.

When it comes to effective range and accuracy, most of us (including me) are not capable of harnessing the full mechanical accuracy of a handgun, revolver or auto. It comes down to what works for each individual. Also, there is not much difference in mechanical accuracy as it is. If anything, when comparing a typical DA revolver to a typical floating barrel-type semi auto, the revolver will usually hold a slight edge, perhaps an inch or so at 25 yards. Not enough to consider in fighting handgun anyway. Snubbies in 38 caliber are usually mechanically capable of quite exceptional accuracy. Some people are better at harnessing that potential than others. Nothing wrong with that.

Gee, did you ever wonder why combat soldiers carry full 20 or 30-round magazines in their weapons and a couple extra full mags on their sides, rather than one 5-round magazine?

Did you ever wonder why virtually every major law enforcement agency/police department in the country has converted over to high-cap semi-autos in the last couple or so decades? As well as a sizable portion of the medium and small lea's/pd's.

Honestly? Not much. I am not a police officer, nor do I serve in the armed forces. What is most consequential to me are what fit my needs and abilities best, paired up with my threat assessment of my local environment. Hypothetically speaking, if they were to suddenly switch back to revolvers, it still would not impact my selection process. I may one day be able to shoot a hicap auto better, if so I'll certainly re-assess my choices.

I live in a pretty low threat environment. Realistically, I'll probably meet my end from eating too much pizza and too many Hardeez Thickburgers . That's not to say that I won't be attacked by dozens of gang members. But it isn't a realistic part of my threat assessment, and if it were, I'd freakin' move! So I stick to platforms that I can draw quickly and get off a fast, well placed shot. But I am always aware of my surrounding and looking for a way out if attacked. Just like driving down the road, I'm always looking for a way out of an ugly situation.

I'd really prefer not to get into a fight in the first place, whether in posssession 5 rounds or 50.

 

[1911Tuner]

Gee, did you ever wonder why combat soldiers carry full 20 or 30-round magazines in their weapons and a couple extra full mags on their sides, rather than one 5-round magazine?

In order to achieve fire superiority against an enemy's position that is returning fire so that they can maneuver and more effectively attack and neutralize him and obtain their objective. Namely...to take and hold strategically important ground.

Apples to oranges...and the thread is quickly moving toward the nether regions.

 

[MKEITH]

5 rounds of .357 in my bodyguard is all it takes to make me feel all warm and cozy.

 

[mr.72]

yeah kind of sorry I stirred the pot.

Honestly I am not that concerned with the threat level in my home town. I am much more concerned about being out traveling and not knowing the lay of the land, what part of town is good or bad, having to get my car fixed or stop and get gas in a shady place etc. Not knowing what to expect, I would prepare for the worst.

 

[BlindJustice]

Dumb poll with all the 5 shot pocket carry revos

imo of course a Model 60 owner neeners

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Sorry, but I'm not going to buy the old "it can't happen here" rationalization.

Drugs, violent crime, gang activity etc., has moved into a significant number of "lazy little towns" nationwide.

Believing that "it can't happen here" is a good prescription for tragedy. Violent crime isn't just a "big city" problem anymore.

Those who are well prepared will fare far better than those who aren't so well prepared. 14 rounds is ALWAYS better than 5. It's a no-brainer.

Defensory,
The tone of your answer is a little off IMO. I never said it can't happen here, I just said it's unlikely. I know what danger is since I lived in NY City for 48 years. I use my head to stay out of trouble and if trouble comes to me I'm sure 5 rounds of .357 Magnum will cure the problem. Ya see, I practice a lot and can hit what I aim at when both I and the target are moving. I don't need 14 rounds in my gun because I don't practice spray-and-pray, I just practice.

You may feel you need 14 rounds and I'm not telling you you're wrong so don't tell me I'm wrong or endangering my family for not agreeing with you. Your opinion is valid but only one opinion. There are over 100 years of statistics that don't agree with you but as long as you feel safe carrying 14 rounds in your handgun all is good.

 

[JohnKSa]

I like to have at least 12 or 13 rounds available. If the gun won't hold that much I carry a reload... That figure isn't anything I've thought through carefully, it just seems to be the way things work out.

 

[Sport45]

I said 5 because that's all my Chief's Special will hold.

 

[TimboKhan]

You know, the thing about capacity is that it's comforting. I carry a Taurus 605, which only has 5 shots, and while logically I know that's more shots than I will likely ever need in my lifetime, there are times when I wish I had more. Skill and practice aside, having the ability to rattle off 15 shots is undeniably more comforting than only being able to put 5 downrange. Necessary? Probably not. Comforting? Definitely.

Of course, capacity seems to matter less to most than does platform. Rarely do 1911 fans who might otherwise argue for capacity look at the 7-8 rounds that the average 1911 holds as a disadvantage. I would go so far as to say that Glock fans would probably still be Glock fans if the capacity was reduced to 7, 8 or 9 rounds. Revolver fans will never leave revolvers and so on. I am sure there are some people who do so, but it just seems to me that it is pretty rare that someone chooses a firearm with capacity being the first consideration.

As a matter of fact, informal polls here on THR show that capacity is generally pretty far down the list when considering a new firearm. By a mile, the number one consideration is reliability of function, which makes perfect sense. Durability is generally near the top, and the next is generally how the gun feels in the hand. Capacity is at best relegated to a fourth or fifth consideration. Of course, as I mentioned, those are just informal polls that mean zippo in the long run, but I suppose it's worth mentioning for philosophical reasons if nothing else.

 

[Defensory]

Posted by 1911Tuner
If that's the case, you're in way over your head anyway unless you hit first, hit hard, and unass the AO at or near the record for the 440 yard dash...no matter how many rounds your pistols holds and with a brace of spare mags on your belt...and about all you can hope for is God's help.

Your answer is cutesie, but doesn't make any sense.

If you're attacked in your house or a parking lot by multiple perps, you can't run very far. You'll just take a few rounds in the back and it'll all be over.

Your best bet is to carry as much ammo as is practical on your person, say a full magazine in your weapon and a couple extras. Duck for cover and hope the ammo holds out until they either decide you've got too much firepower or hopefully the police get there.

Five rounds won't last long in a firefight with three perps. They'll quickly realize you're out of ammo, then approach and put several rounds in your head. Go ahead and try and run, they won't mind shooting you in the back of the head either.

Of course, presuming you had 40 rounds and decent cover, with controlled shooting you could pin then down for a lot longer than you could with 5 rounds. Which MIGHT give the cops enough time to get there.

40 rounds will keep you alive a lot longer than 5---it's a no-brainer.

 

[Defensory]

In order to achieve fire superiority against an enemy's position that is returning fire so that they can maneuver and more effectively attack and neutralize him and obtain their objective. Namely...to take and hold strategically important ground.

Apples to oranges...and the thread is quickly moving toward the nether regions.

Oh, but it ISN'T apples and oranges!

Let's take a man who has a wife and a few young kids. Three heavily armed and determined perpetrators invade his home. The man ducks behind cover and an exchange of gunfire ensues, with the man expending 3 of his 5 rounds, allowing his wife and kids to access a "safe room" in the house. Unfortunately, none of the perps are hit by his initial shots.

Now at that precise moment, I'll lay a thousand to one odds that he would consider the safe room where his family is at, as well as the area where he's at---as "strategically important ground" that he doesn't want to be breached under any circumstances.

Now in this very plausible scenario---would you have wanted to start out with 5 rounds or 40? If he started with only five rounds, he's only got 2 left at this point in time, and facing three determined perps who have high-cap semi-autos. If he had started out with 40 rounds, he's still got 37 left to defend his family and himself.

His wife is locked in the safe room and has successfully contacted the police via cellphone. However, it will take the police about 15 minutes to arrive. 15 minutes is like an eternity in this sort of situation, especially if he's only got two rounds left.

Now would an intelligent individual possessing common sense prefer to have 2 rounds left in this situation, or 37? It's a no-brainer to me.

 

[ScratchnDent]

Good lord, berating people for their choice of defensive weapon is not very High Road.

I answered the poll according to the question, What is the MINIMUM round count you're comfortable with for defense.

On 'minimal threat' days, I'm comfortable carrying my 5 shot snubby to the grocery store.
I prefer my 1911 with 9 rounds ready to go and a spare mag or two.
I keep a shotgun and an XD45 with rail mounted light and 2 extra mags ready for multi-thug home invasion scenarios. Jeez, if there's more than 2, the AK is handy in the closet with a few 30 round mags as well.

 

[mavracer]

Let's take a man who has a wife and a few young kids. Three heavily armed and determined perpetrators invade his home. The man ducks behind cover and an exchange of gunfire ensues, with the man expending 3 of his 5 rounds, allowing his wife and kids to access a "safe room" in the house. Unfortunately, none of the perps are hit by his initial shots.

and then TLW and marine emerges from the safe room with the AR and thugs are now in trouble Semper Fi.

 

[1911Tuner]

Your answer is cutesie, but doesn't make any sense.

My answer wasn't meant to be "cutsie" by any stretch of the term. My answer was very realistic in the same sense that if you're facing three or four big steroid-enhanced body builders who are unarmed, yet determined...and you have a baseball bat or a knife...you will lose that fight. Unless you somehow feel that the other armed members of the team that you're going up against will hold their fire and wait for you to engage them one at a time.

The purpose of the defensive sidearm is to keep you alive when somebody else wants you dead. Sticking around to engage in a running gun fight is a very good way to get shot all to Helen Gone, and...even if you emerge unscathed and victorious...you'll very likely end up with a murder charge on you.

 

[1911Tuner]

Let's take a man who has a wife and a few young kids. Three heavily armed and determined perpetrators invade his home. The man ducks behind cover and an exchange of gunfire ensues,

That's what shotguns and cell phones are for. Most home invaders will break off and disengage when the resident fires. They didn't enter so that they could assault a fortified position under fire. They entered so that they could steal what they wanted and have their way with the occupants without risk to themselves. When the risk goes up, the determination drops accordingly.

Too much TV. Way too much TV.

 

[mr.72]

While I think Defensory's scenario of a home invasion that requires 40 rounds to hold off may be a very low-odds kind of thing, that's not the situation I would imagine is the worst case for self defense.

For example, we have an urban/suburban park in my city with mountain bike trails. The park is about 300-500 acres, and it's just a couple of miles or less from a police substation. It is well known for drug activity and other crime, but still it's a very convenient and popular bike trail. You have to understand that once you are a half a mile from the trail head in any location in the trail, you are really beyond the reasonable access of law enforcement, beyond the reach of street lights, and pretty much secluded. Further in there are technical trails that are hard enough to navigate even if you know them very well, not to mention creek crossings and that kind of thing. You get injured, beaten up, or shot out there, they find you the next day. Anyway one night I was riding (yes, at night, with lights) with a group of 4 or 5 more guys on this trail and we ran upon what appeared to be a drug deal of some kind in progress. There were five or more urban youth businessmen in this group there and of course they assumed they had the area to themselves. As we rode through we got stared down pretty hard from these guys but I am sure the fact that there were as many of us as there were of them is why we were left alone. Had it been just one or two of us, I am not sure I would have been comfortable being unarmed (as I was). If I had run into this crowd by myself and been under assault, I am sure that 5 rounds would not have been nearly enough to save my life. Of course especially since this happened I would never ride this park alone at night, and I would not ride there at night even in a small group without being sufficiently armed. One person with a 5-shot revolver is not sufficient. 1/2 of the group members with high-cap autos would be far more likely to send drug dealers into retreat.

Since I have done a lot of mountain bike riding at night, I notice that around here there are also some areas that are frequented by packs of dogs. I really would not want to have to run into a pack of dogs with just 5 shots on me either. Waving a gun at them is going to do no good, and as you know if they don't retreat after the first shot then they won't stop until every single one has been hit. I know the likelihood seems slim. But bear in mind, sometimes the reason you are stuck on the trail at night is because you are injured or your bike is damaged so you are very slow to retreat anyway.

I guess I'm in the minority, but one of my main criteria when selecting my first handgun was capacity. Mine is 16+1. I am now in the market for my second handgun and concealability is on the top of the list, and beyond the assumed (comfort, accuracy, reliability), capacity comes a close second.

 

[TimboKhan]

Let's take a man who has a wife and a few young kids. Three heavily armed and determined perpetrators invade his home. The man ducks behind cover and an exchange of gunfire ensues, with the man expending 3 of his 5 rounds, allowing his wife and kids to access a "safe room" in the house. Unfortunately, none of the perps are hit by his initial shots.

This is what my AR is for, although the chances of even one person invading my home are slim to none. Being prepared is great, but sometimes you have to just play the odds, and the odds are strongly in my favor that 5 rounds will be enough.

 

[1911Tuner]

While I think Defensory's scenario of a home invasion that requires 40 rounds to hold off may be a very low-odds kind of thing, that's not the situation I would imagine is the worst case for self defense.

Exactly. Very low odds.

These cretins aren't highly motivated, and they usually break it off when the defender demonstrates that he's armed and dangerous, especially if one of'em is on the floor, holdin' his belly...kickin' and screamin' and hollerin' for his mama.

Neither are they dedicated, and stick around to retrieve their fallen comrades the way that Marines or Rangers will. They'll leave him to bleed out in his own time. Low-risk in and out is the name of the game. They may or may not be especially afraid of being hurt, but hurt means hospitals and questions and cops. They don't like answering cops' questions. Deck one of'em, and the rest of the team is gone.

If, however...this fantasy invasion involves a motivated professional team whose mission is to kill you...you're dead. That's what they do. I don't care how many rounds your pistol holds.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Oh, but it ISN'T apples and oranges!

Let's take a man who has a wife and a few young kids. Three heavily armed and determined perpetrators invade his home. The man ducks behind cover and an exchange of gunfire ensues, with the man expending 3 of his 5 rounds, allowing his wife and kids to access a "safe room" in the house. Unfortunately, none of the perps are hit by his initial shots.

Now at that precise moment, I'll lay a thousand to one odds that he would consider the safe room where his family is at, as well as the area where he's at---as "strategically important ground" that he doesn't want to be breached under any circumstances.

Now in this very plausible scenario---would you have wanted to start out with 5 rounds or 40? If he started with only five rounds, he's only got 2 left at this point in time, and facing three determined perps who have high-cap semi-autos. If he had started out with 40 rounds, he's still got 37 left to defend his family and himself.

His wife is locked in the safe room and has successfully contacted the police via cellphone. However, it will take the police about 15 minutes to arrive. 15 minutes is like an eternity in this sort of situation, especially if he's only got two rounds left.

Now would an intelligent individual possessing common sense prefer to have 2 rounds left in this situation, or 37? It's a no-brainer to me.

You answered your own question but didn't agree with yourself. If my initial 3 rounds enabled my wife to get to the safe room then my 5 round revolver did it's job. (although, if I fire 3 times I'm not going to miss with all 3) I won't have to worry about having only 2 rounds left in the revolver for more that about 10 seconds because that's how long it will take my wife to return to the room with the 12 ga Shotgun loaded with Buckshot. It looks like my comfort level is valid.

 

[ronwill]

Guess it depends on your carry preference. Mine being a Kimber Ultra Carry, I voted 7 rounds.

 

[03Shadowbob]

I voted 5...This is my minimum and it ain't very often. Sorry about how dirty it is.

 

[Hawk]

I voted "5" but carry a pistol that has a capacity of 12 if I top off, but I don't so it's really 11.

Nothing wrong with planning for an unlikely eventuality but I'd guess those of us that watch insufficient television will smile benignly but remain moderately bemused.

If you're engaging three highly trained, motivated, well armed adversaries, you might want to check if maybe your job description wasn't changed to "head of state" or "opposition leader in exile" while you weren't looking. Similarly, if your concerned that a your home will be targeted by a similarly determined group, check to see if the word "bank" occurs in your address or you meet any of the criteria of a high-value ransom target.

Scenarios are good fun but some are getting, IMHO, dangerously close to zombies. Those threads are discouraged unless we're talking about books.

The BGs most of us are likely to encounter are not generally overly endowed with tenacity and discipline. If they were, they would be in a different line of work.