smince
Member.
In 2010 I'm not sure why anyone would just carry a 5-shot with no reload, but hey, that's just me...
One shot each if multiple opponents?
- Thread starter Crusader103
- Start date
- Status
md7
Member
smince,
no offense meant at all, but i carry a 5 shot j-frame and that is 5 shots more than i have ever fired in self defense in my life. i think at most self defense distances, a 5 shot revolver with a proficient shooter can succesfully defend himself/herself against multiple assailants. but, my SD philosophy is not to engage in an extended fire fight. it is to engage the closest first, go down the line if they have not scattered, then scoot. sorta a combo of dinner rules/shoot n scoot. i hope i never have to use my gun in SD though, and hope that my SD philosophy is never tested.
by the way, love the sig line!
no offense meant at all, but i carry a 5 shot j-frame and that is 5 shots more than i have ever fired in self defense in my life. i think at most self defense distances, a 5 shot revolver with a proficient shooter can succesfully defend himself/herself against multiple assailants. but, my SD philosophy is not to engage in an extended fire fight. it is to engage the closest first, go down the line if they have not scattered, then scoot. sorta a combo of dinner rules/shoot n scoot. i hope i never have to use my gun in SD though, and hope that my SD philosophy is never tested.
by the way, love the sig line!
smince
Member.
Thanks.
As for the rest, I hope it all works out for you if you ever do need to use your 5-shot.
If you're not carrying a Glock 19 with Ashley Big Dot front sight you might as well lie down in the gutter and die.
I remember reading an article and in passing mentioned that at a board meeting of IDPA the question came up what people were actually carrying then. Virtually all of them had a 5-shot j-frame of some configuration.
If you have to reload one of them in a fight you're seriously screwed.
I remember reading an article and in passing mentioned that at a board meeting of IDPA the question came up what people were actually carrying then. Virtually all of them had a 5-shot j-frame of some configuration.
If you have to reload one of them in a fight you're seriously screwed.
dieselkanic
Member
I dunno, I've seen guys that can reload their wheel-gun faster than i can reload my XD.
Train as you fight. 
Mad Chemist
Member
I'd rather not drift this thread too much, but the j frame's strength is obviously not in it's capacity.
Has anyone bothered to consider the possibility that a multiple opponent encounter will be much more likely to be a melee with BGs trying to knock you down and stomp you than a shoot out at the OK Corral.
How many contact shots can your preferred semi auto perform before you need to clear a malfunction?
How much more difficult is it to disarm or muzzle avert a j frame vs. a semi auto?
Just a little food for thought.
Has anyone bothered to consider the possibility that a multiple opponent encounter will be much more likely to be a melee with BGs trying to knock you down and stomp you than a shoot out at the OK Corral.
How many contact shots can your preferred semi auto perform before you need to clear a malfunction?
How much more difficult is it to disarm or muzzle avert a j frame vs. a semi auto?
Just a little food for thought.
md7
Member
That makes two of us! I sure hope I never have to though. Shooting someone is very very very low on my list of things to do.
boalex207
Member
Agreed.....and me NOT getting shot is very, very, very high on my list.
M2 Carbine
member
I favor one shot each, for starters.
If there is more than one BG I figure the second man will shoot me before I get to him if I shoot the first man twice.
I put myself in the 2'nd, 3'rd BG's place. I wouldn't just be shanding there waiting to get shot.
That's where this entire exercise falls apart - once you look at it from the BGs' point of view: So you and your two associates are going to rob this fellow standing over there. Or maybe you are simply going to attack him for no reason whatsover.
So the three of you, instead of being crafty and lurking, hiding, ambushing your quarry, you approach him in a line and you call out, "Hey there, we are coming over to beat you to a pulp. Don't move!"
As you approach this fellow, he produces a handgun and fires twice at the fellow on the right, who goes down. The two of you left continue to approach the gunman, and you see your remaining associate catch a couple more and he goes down.
See, this isn't working at all for me. On the other hand, if the three of you are armed, and you see the fellow over there reaching for his gun, all three of you will unload on the guy and mow him down. This scenario doesn't really work at all. In the real world, as illustrated by this month's "Armed Citizen" column, in the several-on-one situations the defender shoots once, maybe twice, and everybody high tails it. In reality, when bullets are flying around, people generally take off running as fast as they can move. They don't hang around for you to practice "El Presidente" on them.
While I can understand your position, I too tend to believe that engaging each threat with a single shot and then reassessing might be the best policy. Note I said "I believe". I have no idea whether or not I could carry this out under stress. I would hope that my training would prevent me from the "spray and pray" method of social correction.
I do understand your concern over the rules of certain competitions. I have some major issues with those very same rules.
However, that's a game and we should never fool ourselves into believing that because we can score on the range that we are master gunfighters.
Its a very worthy question and thank you for your insight.
RMD
I do understand your concern over the rules of certain competitions. I have some major issues with those very same rules.
However, that's a game and we should never fool ourselves into believing that because we can score on the range that we are master gunfighters.
Its a very worthy question and thank you for your insight.
RMD
NMGonzo
Member
Cover your retreat with fire.
Depends. I lean toward double taps, as I agree it takes very little extra time. Split times around .25 are pretty easy, shorter is doable. However, if 2 obvious threats are very close (weapons visable, almost contact distance), I want that 1/4 second. As for boarding hose rules... makes sense, but as the distance stretches, for me it will get less certain that I get a center hit on the one shot. Given lag time between the shot and the effect (in some cases) it might be prudent to double tap. An interesting exercise for me was to put a dark sweat shirt over the targets and do multiple assailants from about 5-7 yards. What I realized was that I was watching (or listening) for hits. My cue was a "clang" or a visable hole in paper which was not visable on the "clothed" target. Messed me up. Didn't know if I had a solid hit or not (when stressed, moving, etc) before going on to the next target. That would make me nervous shooting boarding house rules, plus the addtional time it might take to evaluate the first shot would negate any time benefit accruing from the single shot on target technique.
Long story short, I train doing double taps. Shortens my OODA loop/decision tree.
Steve
Long story short, I train doing double taps. Shortens my OODA loop/decision tree.
Steve
It always depends on the situation.
If you have two unarmed guys assisting one who is armed in an attack on you then the armed guy often needs more attention. The unarmed may need a shot if they get close or produce a weapon, but the armed guy needs to be stopped before you switch from him.
Unlike the movies many gun fights where both have guns out result in both sides firing rounds. You may hit someone with some good COM hits first and still take fire in return that also hits you.
Some pistol fights result in both people filling the other guy full of rounds.
It is not the fictional Hollywood Wild West where the first guy to get off a good shot wins the gunfight.
Even with larger defensive calibers. It only takes a split second to fire and most people will have full control for several seconds after being shot most places with handguns.
If one guy is facing another direction, or is distracted he may not need to be shot as quickly as the guy that is already fixated on you. Meaning one needs several rounds before the other needs one.
If all are unarmed and attacking you, or have blunt objects the one closer is a bigger threat. Or maybe one has something that has longer reach or can be thrown. A pipe or brick or random metal or stone object thrown at you that connects with your head my put you down. Allowing them to beat or shoot you to death and retrieve your firearm from you while dazed or unconscious.
The guy with his hands on you or inches away that can grab your gun or arm or try to disarm you may be a more immediate danger than the guy with a weapon 10 feet away, who if you shoot at may allow the closer individual to grapple with you and tie up your firearm, hand, arms, etc leaving you vulnerable to attack from the others.
There is no set rule. Every situation is unique.
Many of those which are not tiny or special alloys also are quite solid and make fearsome blunt objects. I certainly would hate to take some of the big revolvers to the head.
Capacity is a valid concern, but reloading typically is not. Most gunfights are over within a few seconds, and if you need to reload at the typical close ranges of a self defense situation then you are going down to a competent bad guy. A couple second break in a close range gunfight is forever, and how many people keep concealed magazines on them in a concealed manner that they can get to anywhere near as fast as at the range or in a match. Just having to move a shirt, waistband, or jacket out of the way is going to add some time.
That is not to say you shouldn't be prepared to reload for those situations when it is valid, but being able to reload when you are the target of a close range attack is uncommon.
Once you have an unloaded gun, a club you can swing immediately may be more effective at stopping someone at typical self defense ranges than the reload you can insert in a few seconds and which requires greater dexterity.
If you have two unarmed guys assisting one who is armed in an attack on you then the armed guy often needs more attention. The unarmed may need a shot if they get close or produce a weapon, but the armed guy needs to be stopped before you switch from him.
Unlike the movies many gun fights where both have guns out result in both sides firing rounds. You may hit someone with some good COM hits first and still take fire in return that also hits you.
Some pistol fights result in both people filling the other guy full of rounds.
It is not the fictional Hollywood Wild West where the first guy to get off a good shot wins the gunfight.
Even with larger defensive calibers. It only takes a split second to fire and most people will have full control for several seconds after being shot most places with handguns.
If one guy is facing another direction, or is distracted he may not need to be shot as quickly as the guy that is already fixated on you. Meaning one needs several rounds before the other needs one.
If all are unarmed and attacking you, or have blunt objects the one closer is a bigger threat. Or maybe one has something that has longer reach or can be thrown. A pipe or brick or random metal or stone object thrown at you that connects with your head my put you down. Allowing them to beat or shoot you to death and retrieve your firearm from you while dazed or unconscious.
The guy with his hands on you or inches away that can grab your gun or arm or try to disarm you may be a more immediate danger than the guy with a weapon 10 feet away, who if you shoot at may allow the closer individual to grapple with you and tie up your firearm, hand, arms, etc leaving you vulnerable to attack from the others.
There is no set rule. Every situation is unique.
Some revolvers are firing rounds that stop better than any autoloader.
Many of those which are not tiny or special alloys also are quite solid and make fearsome blunt objects. I certainly would hate to take some of the big revolvers to the head.
Capacity is a valid concern, but reloading typically is not. Most gunfights are over within a few seconds, and if you need to reload at the typical close ranges of a self defense situation then you are going down to a competent bad guy. A couple second break in a close range gunfight is forever, and how many people keep concealed magazines on them in a concealed manner that they can get to anywhere near as fast as at the range or in a match. Just having to move a shirt, waistband, or jacket out of the way is going to add some time.
That is not to say you shouldn't be prepared to reload for those situations when it is valid, but being able to reload when you are the target of a close range attack is uncommon.
Once you have an unloaded gun, a club you can swing immediately may be more effective at stopping someone at typical self defense ranges than the reload you can insert in a few seconds and which requires greater dexterity.
Last edited:
md7
Member
Boalex207,
we are agreed on both counts! getting shot is definitely not something i want to experience.
we are agreed on both counts! getting shot is definitely not something i want to experience.
At Blackwater, we were taught a drill called "set and move".
Bad guy #1 gets 2 shots, Bad guy #2 gets one shot
Then retreat to cover
Bad guy #2 then gets 2 shots, and Bad guy #1 gets one shot.
I say move to cover first. If you can engage while moving fine.
You can formulate all kinds of tactics for different scenarios but doing so is confusing and can lead to failure like:
1. 2 each and start over-fine if you have a high capacity auto but what if you have a revolver and there's 4? Even if you stopped the first 3 there's still one more. Something to consider if you carry different guns.
2. Go for the biggest threat- Do you really think you're going to have time to figure out who's got the most powerful weapon? I'm not talking about who's nearer to you.
You need to keep you training simple, KISS. That's why I think one each and start over or work your way back if the BGs are all about the same distance from you. Each situation calls for it's own assessment so this isn't set in stone but it is the starting SOP as far as I'm concerned. The most important part of a SOP is you have something to deviate from. You can practice all of the things but if you try to catergorize them into a SOP you'll only confuse yourself if that time comes.
Bad guy #1 gets 2 shots, Bad guy #2 gets one shot
Then retreat to cover
Bad guy #2 then gets 2 shots, and Bad guy #1 gets one shot.
I say move to cover first. If you can engage while moving fine.
You can formulate all kinds of tactics for different scenarios but doing so is confusing and can lead to failure like:
1. 2 each and start over-fine if you have a high capacity auto but what if you have a revolver and there's 4? Even if you stopped the first 3 there's still one more. Something to consider if you carry different guns.
2. Go for the biggest threat- Do you really think you're going to have time to figure out who's got the most powerful weapon? I'm not talking about who's nearer to you.
You need to keep you training simple, KISS. That's why I think one each and start over or work your way back if the BGs are all about the same distance from you. Each situation calls for it's own assessment so this isn't set in stone but it is the starting SOP as far as I'm concerned. The most important part of a SOP is you have something to deviate from. You can practice all of the things but if you try to catergorize them into a SOP you'll only confuse yourself if that time comes.
Last edited:
If you opt for one shot each, how do you know you haven't missed? I can see if they're 3 feet away, but in dim light, with the BG wearing heavy clothes and with pistol calibers, and at some reasonable distance (10 yards maybe) it seems possible, even likely that in the fractions of a second after the shot but before you move on, you may have no idea if you hit the guy or if the bullet passed harmlessly between the torso and arm, for example.
You could miss 1, hit 2, and while you're going for 3, 1 could be shooting at you. Maybe someone with experience could chime in regarding whether this is a realistic concern?
Do you think it would be more effective to just shoot each till they fall down, then move on?
You could miss 1, hit 2, and while you're going for 3, 1 could be shooting at you. Maybe someone with experience could chime in regarding whether this is a realistic concern?
Do you think it would be more effective to just shoot each till they fall down, then move on?
MachIVshooter
Member
Unless the hammer is already cocked, it'd be easier to stop a revolver from functioning than a semi. Solid grasp on the cylinder and it ain't gonna go. With an auto, you've gotta get that slide back at least 1/8". A solid grip on the muzzle wont do that, and it'd be really easy to simply pull the gun back toward you if the BG has a grip on the slide only, and once back into battery, it'll fire.
The best way to avoid being shot at contact distance is to avert the muzzle anyway, rather than trying to render the gun mechanically inoperable. I can take down a Beretta 92 just like Jet Li did in Lethal Weapon 4, but I wouldn't stake my life on it if someone were holding one to my head.
As far as multiple assailants, I don't think there's really a protocol for dealing with it. The circumstances are probably as varied as we can imagine. If I'm faced with 3 or 4 armed attackers, I'm probably going to re-evaluate even drawing my weapon. I'm just not that fast. Might just have to give 'em what they want. If it's my life they're after, they may well get that too. That'd be pretty lowsy odds for survival. Forunately, I've not heard of roving gangs of assassins turning up on US streets just yet. If that starts to become a regular occurance, a level III vest and my PLR-16 will become my EDC.
If you opt for one shot each, how do you know you haven't missed?
You don't know this even if you use 2 or 3 shots each. If you're doing 2 shots each and have 3 targets, #3 is necessarily standing there while you engage #1 and #2.
I can see if they're 3 feet away, but in dim light, with the BG wearing heavy clothes and with pistol calibers, and at some reasonable distance (10 yards maybe) it seems possible, even likely that in the fractions of a second after the shot but before you move on, you may have no idea if you hit the guy or if the bullet passed harmlessly between the torso and arm, for example.
All of this can happen with 2 or 3 shots each.
You could miss 1, hit 2, and while you're going for 3, 1 could be shooting at you. Maybe someone with experience could chime in regarding whether this is a realistic concern?
Do you think it would be more effective to just shoot each till they fall down, then move on?
That can happen. The more shots you take at each target, the more time you're giving number 3 time to hit you. Remember these guys are attacking you. They already have wepaons out and showed intent to do you harm or otherwise you wouldn't be doing what you're doing.
If it takes 5-6 shots to put #1 down that gives plenty of time for #2 and #3 to hit you. Take the chance on hitting #1 with one shot and at least you got his attention.
I have reviewed quite a few gunfights with my NYPD buds and when shots are fired the bad guys start running.
I have also compared notes with NYPD and other agencies. This is true if the bad guys aren't armed with firearms and you take one out. But if they are determined and organized (like most of the big street gangs or better), they will be ready to engage you while putting several into #1.
As far as multiple assailants, I don't think there's really a protocol for dealing with it. The circumstances are probably as varied as we can imagine.
Best statement made. If you lock yourself into one tactic you've only prepared for one scenario. As I said above, Each situation calls for it's own assessment so this isn't set in stone but it is the starting SOP as far as I'm concerned. The most important part of a SOP is you have something to deviate from..
You don't know this even if you use 2 or 3 shots each. If you're doing 2 shots each and have 3 targets, #3 is necessarily standing there while you engage #1 and #2.
I can see if they're 3 feet away, but in dim light, with the BG wearing heavy clothes and with pistol calibers, and at some reasonable distance (10 yards maybe) it seems possible, even likely that in the fractions of a second after the shot but before you move on, you may have no idea if you hit the guy or if the bullet passed harmlessly between the torso and arm, for example.
All of this can happen with 2 or 3 shots each.
You could miss 1, hit 2, and while you're going for 3, 1 could be shooting at you. Maybe someone with experience could chime in regarding whether this is a realistic concern?
Do you think it would be more effective to just shoot each till they fall down, then move on?
That can happen. The more shots you take at each target, the more time you're giving number 3 time to hit you. Remember these guys are attacking you. They already have wepaons out and showed intent to do you harm or otherwise you wouldn't be doing what you're doing.
If it takes 5-6 shots to put #1 down that gives plenty of time for #2 and #3 to hit you. Take the chance on hitting #1 with one shot and at least you got his attention.
I have reviewed quite a few gunfights with my NYPD buds and when shots are fired the bad guys start running.
I have also compared notes with NYPD and other agencies. This is true if the bad guys aren't armed with firearms and you take one out. But if they are determined and organized (like most of the big street gangs or better), they will be ready to engage you while putting several into #1.
As far as multiple assailants, I don't think there's really a protocol for dealing with it. The circumstances are probably as varied as we can imagine.
Best statement made. If you lock yourself into one tactic you've only prepared for one scenario. As I said above, Each situation calls for it's own assessment so this isn't set in stone but it is the starting SOP as far as I'm concerned. The most important part of a SOP is you have something to deviate from..
Last edited:
Mad Chemist
Member
Wrong!
Experience tells me you have never trained this.
If a training partner attempts to grab the cylinder of a small revolver, one technique is to forcefully pull the revolver back by driving your elbow backwards (basically returning to the #2 position of the drawstroke) combine this with a slight corkscrewing motion and they WILL lose their grip on the weapon.
Don't believe me? Then try it out.
Always take enough gun,cacacity wise, regardless. A 5 shot J frame may not get it done, tho I have spent may a day armed with one. And more days with a 6 shooter in 357 mag.
As for my actions: Tap#1, move, acquire #2, tap. Lather, rinse, repeat as necesary.
As for my actions: Tap#1, move, acquire #2, tap. Lather, rinse, repeat as necesary.
In such a fast paced and unpredictable environment I would be running on automatic pilot (programmed in with good and regular training) and hopefully doing the things most likely to result in the best outcome for me.
To suggest that it would be better to serve up one shot to each opponent or two shots and so on doesn't take into account which opponent poses the greatest apparent/real threat in that moment.
Also missing from this discussion is that one or multiple shots may not incapacitate a threat quickly enough to prevent them from continuing to be a lethal threat to you. Incapacitation is going to happen in one of two ways psychological or CNS shutdown either from a brain box shot, spinal cord shot or bleeding out.
Shooting a threat one time or fifteen times does not guarantee incapacitation immediately, soon or even ever. I met a guy that had been shot 14 times years before and he suffered no apparent permanent damage other than lots of scars.
With a fast bleed out say, "a wound that totally severs the thoracic aorta" it would take at a minimum about 4.6 seconds to lose enough blood to start to begin to cause incapacitation but there is enough oxygenated blood in the blood in the brain to keep the brain functioning for a longer time.*
Facing just two determined threats and assuming that you can do a half mag dump into each threat and they can in turn do a whole mag dump into you and assuming a 30% hit to miss ratio for you and a 10% hit to miss ratio for the bad guys and you both have 17 round mags with one in the pipe = 18 rounds for you and 36 rounds for the bad guys.
You are going to hit the threats five times. You may hit one threat five times and completely miss the other guy but for this example I'll assume you hit both threats with the aorta shot mentioned above on your first and second shot and subsequent hits do not contribute to further incapacitation.
The two bad guys have more than enough time to do a complete mag dump in your direction (before they are incapacitated) so that is 36 shots with (I'll handicap them and round down) one out of ten shots hitting it's mark. You will get shot three times.
So I guess the correct answer is that a superior gunfighter uses his superior judgement to avoid situations where his superior skills might be required.
Failing to avoid the situation running for cover or escape and shooting for cover could be the best plan of action.
---------------------------------------
* Newgard, Ken, M.D.: "The Physiological Effects of Handgun Bullets: The Mechanisms of Wounding and Incapacitation." Wound Ballistics Review, 1(3): 12-17; 1992.
To suggest that it would be better to serve up one shot to each opponent or two shots and so on doesn't take into account which opponent poses the greatest apparent/real threat in that moment.
Also missing from this discussion is that one or multiple shots may not incapacitate a threat quickly enough to prevent them from continuing to be a lethal threat to you. Incapacitation is going to happen in one of two ways psychological or CNS shutdown either from a brain box shot, spinal cord shot or bleeding out.
Shooting a threat one time or fifteen times does not guarantee incapacitation immediately, soon or even ever. I met a guy that had been shot 14 times years before and he suffered no apparent permanent damage other than lots of scars.
With a fast bleed out say, "a wound that totally severs the thoracic aorta" it would take at a minimum about 4.6 seconds to lose enough blood to start to begin to cause incapacitation but there is enough oxygenated blood in the blood in the brain to keep the brain functioning for a longer time.*
Facing just two determined threats and assuming that you can do a half mag dump into each threat and they can in turn do a whole mag dump into you and assuming a 30% hit to miss ratio for you and a 10% hit to miss ratio for the bad guys and you both have 17 round mags with one in the pipe = 18 rounds for you and 36 rounds for the bad guys.
You are going to hit the threats five times. You may hit one threat five times and completely miss the other guy but for this example I'll assume you hit both threats with the aorta shot mentioned above on your first and second shot and subsequent hits do not contribute to further incapacitation.
The two bad guys have more than enough time to do a complete mag dump in your direction (before they are incapacitated) so that is 36 shots with (I'll handicap them and round down) one out of ten shots hitting it's mark. You will get shot three times.
So I guess the correct answer is that a superior gunfighter uses his superior judgement to avoid situations where his superior skills might be required.
Failing to avoid the situation running for cover or escape and shooting for cover could be the best plan of action.
---------------------------------------
* Newgard, Ken, M.D.: "The Physiological Effects of Handgun Bullets: The Mechanisms of Wounding and Incapacitation." Wound Ballistics Review, 1(3): 12-17; 1992.
Last edited:
Mad Chemist
Member
While I think hypothetical hit percentages tend to be a little dubious at best, this remark is gospel.
and necessarily leads to..
and necessarily leads to..
smince
Member.
This is my reasoning for the comments regarding the J-frame/no reload carry.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
