Took you awhile since your first response of apples vs oranges to come back with another hint hint. Carry what you like and like what you carry. Gone hunting later...
Number of rounds used in defense going up?
- Thread starter Stevel
- Start date
- Status
Took you awhile since your first response of apples vs oranges to come back with another hint hint. Carry what you like and like what you carry. Gone hunting later...
When you don't carry the 5 shot revolver, why? (Doing the court thing: "You usually carry a 5 shot revolver but this time a 17 round ___ were you looking for trouble")
Having bullets available and pulling the trigger additional times are not inexorably linked.
Perhaps a derringer would be even more court proof.
Playing the court game with my carry, which is always a Glock 34 or 22 - sometimes I want to muzzle to impact a different spot.
I've carried a 15+ round pistol everywhere (even walking the dogs) for several years (consistent), since I retired and could dress as I choose.
Those two pistols have a dot which helps me shoot most accurate (aged eyes); we should carry a handgun we shoot accurately, right.
In 30+ years of carry, I've never "needed" a single bullet.
Hypothetical self defense: Despite having xx rounds in the gun only x were fired which was the number required to stop (incapacitate) the threat(s).
Oh yea, I carried a 17 round Glock when I was a cop in KY (what I trained with) ... and the officers in the court have how many rounds capacity to protect us.
trackskippy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 3,486
He may not have been wrong, but neither were the officers, if the problem was solved. And whos to say that the orders werent reversed? Was that taken into account? He may have deduced wrong.
Both of the above are software cases, not hardware.
For the rifle, given shooters of more or less equal skill, the rifle wouldnt matter in this case, or probably, any case. As long as the problem didnt require more rounds.
I think where things tend to get skewed with a lot of the old school trained shooters is, they havent continued to learn and move forward, and are simply stuck with what they know and are comfortable with. They are still trying to solve the problem with older technology and the limits that puts on them. Nothing wrong with what they know, or the gun that they use, but they are dated compared to other things, and they do force limits on the shooter, and unnecessarily. But of course, if youre willing to accept that, and thats your choice, thats your choice.
And the usual banter about spray and pray, and shooting "to much", I think, is again, a lack of moving forward and taking advantage of what is newer tech and newer training. Just because you have more rounds in the gun, doesnt necessarily mean youre just going to be cranking them off willy nilly in a panic, controlled fire can be both slow and quick, but its still "controlled", and if you have the rounds, you have the advantage, that you can continue to shoot, where someone with a lesser capacity is quickly getting into a bad spot, if what they are shooting, isnt cooperating with what they expect.
Again, handgun rounds are poor manstoppers, and you may well have to continue to shoot to get the result you want, no matter how good you might think you are.
The problem here is, both software and hardware need to be updated as needed and when available, "if" you want to keep up. No one is telling you you have to, but its only to your advantage to do so.
wcwhitey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,814
My second post in this discussion. There is no one size fits all. As an individual every single person has to evaluate their personal security needs and the environment of their “AO”. I use AO a bunch it’s “Area of Occupation” as in where I was legally empowered or AKA “Jurisdiction”. Anyway, from applying the first rule of having a gun to going super tacticool it’s up to that person to evaluate their needs. I can only state how I hopefully have evaluated mine and prepare for the unknown. What I like is that these things are being thought about realistically. Having a plan, train, make it a habit and trusting instincts will get your further whether it is a 5 shot gun or 17. Security wise you elevate yourself to the top of the class.
guyfromohio
Member
Training. More people are getting training and today’s training dictates that you shoot until the threat is stopped. I know the last two I did taught four shots to center mass and then assess.
sgt127
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,110
It is. But the pressure of shooting against a World Class shooter seems to make them shoot and miss, faster.
dweis
Member
I read the study years ago when it was first published. It was quite understandable, but it is academic, that it, I cannot be applied in practice. If I am a great shot with a 22 and can put a round just under the bad guys nose I am likely to hit the hit where his spine meets his brain stem. That is a one shot stop. If I am not so great with a 45 ACP and I only hit the assailant in the hand, I will slow him down but not stop him. The two most important factors in stopping an attacker are speed and accuracy. How fast can you get on target and how well POA and POI coincide. That is just logic being applied. Caliber is an issue when it comes to the third criterion — wound severity.
As a Marine I always liked the adages of Chesty Puller, the most decorated Marine in its history. My favorite is “You don’t hurt ‘me if you don’t hit ‘em.” That is undeniable. I also was trained under the Corp’s tenant of “one shot — one kill.” That’s a goal that is hard to achieve in a firefight. It is harder to achieve with a handgun than with a rifle because of the dynamics of handgun shooting. Thus capacity is a factor in in self defense.
As a combat photographer in Nam my primary weapon was an M1911. While I mostly shot a camera in battles I did have to shoot the pistol on many occasions when staying alive was more important than documenting the battle. When you only have 7 rounds to fire before you have to reload you get good at fast magazine changes. Being too slow can make you a casualty very fast especially if the fellow shooting at you has higher capacity. Caliber makes no difference when it comes to that fact.
I uses to be OK with my EDC semi having a 7 round capacity because I was not facing wartime threats. But as the incidence of active shooters has increased over the years I had a change of heart. I bought a Ruger Security 9 Compact. Only when deep concealment is required do I deploy its 10 round magazine. Otherwise it is loaded with the 15 round magazine, and I have an extra mag on my belt. I have come to do that for one reason.
From experience in Nam I know how hard it is to deliver an incapacitating shot when being shot at. More ammo is better than less ammo. I subscribe to the words of Franz Kafka: “Better to have and not need than to need and not have.” So, I am not switching to a revolver.
As a Marine I always liked the adages of Chesty Puller, the most decorated Marine in its history. My favorite is “You don’t hurt ‘me if you don’t hit ‘em.” That is undeniable. I also was trained under the Corp’s tenant of “one shot — one kill.” That’s a goal that is hard to achieve in a firefight. It is harder to achieve with a handgun than with a rifle because of the dynamics of handgun shooting. Thus capacity is a factor in in self defense.
As a combat photographer in Nam my primary weapon was an M1911. While I mostly shot a camera in battles I did have to shoot the pistol on many occasions when staying alive was more important than documenting the battle. When you only have 7 rounds to fire before you have to reload you get good at fast magazine changes. Being too slow can make you a casualty very fast especially if the fellow shooting at you has higher capacity. Caliber makes no difference when it comes to that fact.
I uses to be OK with my EDC semi having a 7 round capacity because I was not facing wartime threats. But as the incidence of active shooters has increased over the years I had a change of heart. I bought a Ruger Security 9 Compact. Only when deep concealment is required do I deploy its 10 round magazine. Otherwise it is loaded with the 15 round magazine, and I have an extra mag on my belt. I have come to do that for one reason.
From experience in Nam I know how hard it is to deliver an incapacitating shot when being shot at. More ammo is better than less ammo. I subscribe to the words of Franz Kafka: “Better to have and not need than to need and not have.” So, I am not switching to a revolver.
The_Quartermaster
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2022
- Messages
- 474
Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. It wouldn't stress me out, you'd have to be already shooting at me and I'd have to to have a bit of adrenaline and other stressors to get to possibly miss first. But on a one way range? Hah, no problem.
Smaug
Member
One thing I have noticed from watching recent police shooting videos on YouTube is that a cop usually tries NOT to shoot as long as he reasonably can. ...but when he DOES shoot, he empties the gun all at once; they don't often wait to see the effect of the first round.
One example I can't find now is the one where the perp, a tall white guy, whacked out on PCP or something was pulled over by a cop. (chunky white guy) The perp gets agitated at being hassled and picks up a big branch, wielding it at the cop. The cop drew his gun then.* The perp walked toward the cop, wielding the branch. The cop repeated "put it down" and/or "put it down or I'm gonna shoot you." Finally, the cop was backed up to his car, the perp broke the branch on the cop, and the cop emptied his mag into the perp's chest at probably 2-3' range. The perp kept coming until (we guess) his spine was hit and he went down like a sack of potatoes.
If this is the police tactic, then carrying a higher capacity gun means more rounds will be fired. We didn't have YouTube, police car cams or chest cams in the revolver days, so it's hard to know what the tactic was if you weren't a cop. We DO have some retired cops here; maybe they can shed some light on it? Did cops in the 50s-80s empty their cylinders into a perp as soon as they decided they had to shoot?
My grandpa was a cop in the 50s. He said if he had to shoot someone, he would've shot for the legs, if he could. I can't see him emptying his gun into a perp all at once.
* Some might ask: "why not draw a taser or pepper spray against a man armed with a branch?"
One example I can't find now is the one where the perp, a tall white guy, whacked out on PCP or something was pulled over by a cop. (chunky white guy) The perp gets agitated at being hassled and picks up a big branch, wielding it at the cop. The cop drew his gun then.* The perp walked toward the cop, wielding the branch. The cop repeated "put it down" and/or "put it down or I'm gonna shoot you." Finally, the cop was backed up to his car, the perp broke the branch on the cop, and the cop emptied his mag into the perp's chest at probably 2-3' range. The perp kept coming until (we guess) his spine was hit and he went down like a sack of potatoes.
If this is the police tactic, then carrying a higher capacity gun means more rounds will be fired. We didn't have YouTube, police car cams or chest cams in the revolver days, so it's hard to know what the tactic was if you weren't a cop. We DO have some retired cops here; maybe they can shed some light on it? Did cops in the 50s-80s empty their cylinders into a perp as soon as they decided they had to shoot?
My grandpa was a cop in the 50s. He said if he had to shoot someone, he would've shot for the legs, if he could. I can't see him emptying his gun into a perp all at once.
* Some might ask: "why not draw a taser or pepper spray against a man armed with a branch?"
The_Quartermaster
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2022
- Messages
- 474
Are we all cops now? Or are we carrying for self defense and call the cops when we see dangers and not engage while evading? Pick one, you can't have both.
Yep--that's the law.
The officer fired repeatedly while backing up, as the aggressor continued his attack.
It wasn't "the tactic"--it was what it took to stop the guy.
Not a good idea, for several reasons.
The officer in the video crainly did not "empty his gun...all at once". He fired until the attack ended.
That took 12 rounds. It is not clear how many were in the gun.
The use of force in this case was consistent with standard police and civilian defensive training.
We carry for self defense. So do sworn officers.
It is true that police officers may not retreat, and that unlike civilians, they may lawfully be the initial aggressors in use of force confrontations.
I would call the police at the earliest possible opportunity, but I would not expect their arrival timely. And evasion is the thing to do--when it works.
The_Quartermaster
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2022
- Messages
- 474
Redundancy reply really. I already knew all of that.
And have called. And afterwards I was told that I could have shot the aggressor after he was arrested. That time, it did WORK. I know the use of force around here. It was my call. It's easy to say what we'll do, it's harder to think and problem solve on the go. I've been under the gun before, my life was really in danger. But this wasn't that time. But do not mistake that as a weakness for I assure you if it really is in danger and I did what I could to mitigate, it's game on. But then again I do my best to avoid things. And where I live, it's very easy to avoid. Situation awareness, risk assessments, all of that, and where you live may be different, but where I live it's not where you live.
I carry self defense for me, it's not my job to go looking for threats because it's again, not my job.
This is still extrapolating the what if appeals to fallacy arguments. Know your lane, I am very well aware of mine.
md7
Member
My thought on this is simple. Carry a handgun that gives me the best option of a successful outcome in a worst case, real world scenario.
For me, that’s defense against multiple attackers or defense against an assailant with a rifle. God forbid these occur, and I surely hope they don’t. But my choice of carry is either a G26 with 12 plus 1 and a reload or a Glock 19 plus a reload. And when venturing into town, it’s often times two reloads.
Regardless, judicious marksmanship is helpful and practice with training helps too. In the end, if the fight stops with one round then great. And the option to continue fighting is available if not.
For me, that’s defense against multiple attackers or defense against an assailant with a rifle. God forbid these occur, and I surely hope they don’t. But my choice of carry is either a G26 with 12 plus 1 and a reload or a Glock 19 plus a reload. And when venturing into town, it’s often times two reloads.
Regardless, judicious marksmanship is helpful and practice with training helps too. In the end, if the fight stops with one round then great. And the option to continue fighting is available if not.
sgt127
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,110
Funny you mention that. I’ve pondered carrying a 6” .357 for active shooters. If he’s got a long gun, distance is more my friend than capacity.
TomJ
Contributing Member
We were taught to shoot until the threat was stopped. That may be one round or several. I've never heard of anyone being taught to shoot until the gun was empty.
trackskippy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 3,486
I think the answer is still.... in each and every case, it will take the exact number of rounds necessary to solve the problem, to solve the problem. 
I could be wrong too, but Im thinking not.
And, Im not saying the person solving the problem is necessarily the one that's supposed to be here either. This all works both ways.
With that in mind, shoot first, shoot fast, and shoot often.......enough, to be "the one".
I could be wrong too, but Im thinking not.
And, Im not saying the person solving the problem is necessarily the one that's supposed to be here either. This all works both ways.
With that in mind, shoot first, shoot fast, and shoot often.......enough, to be "the one".
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,580
I reckon a disciplined shooter will shoot some rounds at a threat, and then stop and assess the effect before deciding whether to continue shooting. Prudence would dictate that this stop-assess-decide moment should occur before all the available ammunition is expended. That way if the decision is to keep shooting, or a new threat appears, a fast response is possible.
In other words, I think a sensible approach is to shoot multiple rounds at the threat, but to leave some in reserve. If you’re shooting a revolver that might be shooting 3 and having 3 left in the cylinder. If shooting a semi auto that might involve shooting 13 and having 5 left in the gun. Would shooting 13 times constitute true “spray and pray?” IMO, no. It’s possible to shoot 13 times with speed, accuracy, and awareness. And these numbers just illustrate the dramatically greater flexibility and margin of error that a firearm with a modern capacity magazine allows.
In other words, I think a sensible approach is to shoot multiple rounds at the threat, but to leave some in reserve. If you’re shooting a revolver that might be shooting 3 and having 3 left in the cylinder. If shooting a semi auto that might involve shooting 13 and having 5 left in the gun. Would shooting 13 times constitute true “spray and pray?” IMO, no. It’s possible to shoot 13 times with speed, accuracy, and awareness. And these numbers just illustrate the dramatically greater flexibility and margin of error that a firearm with a modern capacity magazine allows.
Regarding the incident(s) in which the defender(s) have been compelled to repeatedly fire, into an attacker, let’s remember that it may be necessary to physically get away from the line of attack, and/or may be necessary to select different points of aim, if the usually-recommended upper torso hits are ineffective. To be clear, I am not preaching against magazine capacity, when I say this.
trackskippy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 3,486
I think a lot, if not the majority of people, have never shot their handguns, beyond static slow fire. Once you factor in speed and movement (just on your part), it becomes very clear, you arent going to be shooting those tight little groups everyone likes to post up. Reality is, youre looking for good solid hits on target, where you were looking when the gun goes off (and know "why" you're shooting there too), and they still arent likely to be perfect. Good enough works too, especially if you're quickly putting more than one in there.
Add to that, handgun calibers suck, and your hits arent likely going to be perfect, and the other guy is likely to be moving as well, and that's assuming he's alone too, and all of a sudden, you find out, you may well need more than you think. Reality is a bitch, especially if youre not realistic about it.
You need to be comfortable shooting quickly and repetitively, with and without sights, and while moving as you shoot, and familiar with what goes on there as well.
The whole point of regularly doing all sorts of things in practice is so you arent doing it for the first time, "live" and trying to wing it. Its probably not going to be exactly what you might work on in practice, but enough of its likely going to be close enough thats its not unfamiliar to you.
And what you do doesn't even have to be realistic or make a lot of sense in a lot of cases, it just conditions you to be comfortable reactively shooting in all sorts of ways, so that youre comfortable shooting differently, and without having to think about doing it.
Add to that, handgun calibers suck, and your hits arent likely going to be perfect, and the other guy is likely to be moving as well, and that's assuming he's alone too, and all of a sudden, you find out, you may well need more than you think. Reality is a bitch, especially if youre not realistic about it.
You need to be comfortable shooting quickly and repetitively, with and without sights, and while moving as you shoot, and familiar with what goes on there as well.
The whole point of regularly doing all sorts of things in practice is so you arent doing it for the first time, "live" and trying to wing it. Its probably not going to be exactly what you might work on in practice, but enough of its likely going to be close enough thats its not unfamiliar to you.
And what you do doesn't even have to be realistic or make a lot of sense in a lot of cases, it just conditions you to be comfortable reactively shooting in all sorts of ways, so that youre comfortable shooting differently, and without having to think about doing it.
tactikel
Member
In years past 1 assailant would attack you, 6 shots were likely sufficient. Lately in Chicago, a car will pull up and 3-4 “youths” will jump out and attempt to rob/carjack you. 10 rounds is now the new minimum, 12 to 15 is better. They adapted to us, we must adapt to them.
- Status
