Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why so many rounds?

Discussion in 'Handguns: General Discussion' started by Kano383, Dec 28, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Averageman

    Averageman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,439
    Location:
    Texas
    I would imagine nobody who every survived a gunfight ever said "I wish I would have carried less ammunition that day."
    Everybody is going to react differently, everyone is going to have a bad day, everyone is going to have a variable in their skill set day to day and occasion to occasion.
    I would rather err to carrying an extra pound of ammunition than to have a hundred grains or so of it removed from my body in surgery.
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  2. scaatylobo

    scaatylobo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,698
    Location:
    Western NYS
    My other point on this subject [ and I do see it as part of the OP's start ].

    WHAT DO YOU REALLY CARRY ?.

    AND = do you have,and TRAIN for a worst case scenario.

    I carry a Glock 23 and spare magazines [ plural ].Often a BUG and blade,flashlight etc.

    My "worst case scenario" is a mall,store,theater,Mumbai attack.

    I will be outgunned,and I will sure as hell try to get out a back door.

    BUT if wife is with me,or I just cannot leave,I do not want to stop fighting due to a 5 shot limit.

    I train ,and yes shoot for that scenario.

    Paranoid,or not.

    I don't care how you feel about my loadout,that is how "I roll".AND why.

    IF you all don't have a cause,reason etc - then enjoy your snubby's = I love mine as a BUG and pocket gun in winter as the coat is done up and the primary in not reachable.

    Hope you see my point,if not ----- who cares :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

    btw, anyone that actually loses sleep over any of this subject REALLY needs help.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  3. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    12,148
    Location:
    DFW Area
    No, but the converse is true. A person who scores really well on a square range qualification can still be a lousy gunfighter, but someone who can't shoot even under the controlled circumstances of qualification certainly won't develop amazing marksmanship/tactical skills when someone starts shooting at them.
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  4. GRIZ22

    GRIZ22 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    FWIW, NYPD keeps the best stats on police gunfights. Long ago they determined there is no correlation between how good somebody does in qualifications and how well they do in a gunfight.

    Gunfighting is like 95% mental and 5% marksmanship.
     
  5. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    12,148
    Location:
    DFW Area
    Are you saying that someone who can't shoot well when faced with only paper targets might still be a good gunfighter?

    I can see how a good shooter might still be a lousy gunfighter, but I'm struggling with the idea of how someone who can't shoot could make a good gunfighter...

    I get that there's a huge mental component to gunfighting but I'm not sure how someone's state of mind can help them hit targets under pressure when they can't do it under ideal conditions.
     
  6. Kano383

    Kano383 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    East Africa
    Someone who can consistently shoot 2-3 inches at 25 yards on paper will leave in the dust someone who just manages to stay within one foot at the same distance. On paper.

    Bring that to 7-10 feet in a gunfight, if the Top Gun guy loses his nerves and shoots everywhere except in the right spot, and the lousy shot keeps his acts together and still produces his one foot accuracy, all of a sudden his group becomes less than a couple of inches, because the BG is at ten feet, not twenty five yards.

    End of the BG, and paper targets don't mean squat...
     
  7. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    TEXAS!
    It goes like this folks.

    Master class shooters TEND to do better in gun fights. Jim Cirillo, of NYPD stake out squad fame, in his book on gun fighting gave a list of qualities needed to be in such a unit that had lots of gunfights. Being an avid shoting competitor was one of them as well as being a hunter and reloader. Nother words one very familiar with guns, stalking, hitting moving targets, and killing things.

    A shooting competitor, BTW, is not just one who qualifies well on the square range. And note I said 'tend' to do better. Lots more to gunfighting than just that.

    Deaf
     
    scaatylobo and RetiredUSNChief like this.
  8. 45_auto

    45_auto Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,130
    Location:
    Southern Louisiana
    Sgt Maynard Smith got the Medal of Honor for disagreeing with you. He apparently had such a desire for less ammo that he commenced throwing it overboard.

    From Maynard Smith Medal of Honor citation:

     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  9. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,606
    "manned the workable guns" is an important line in that citation if you are trying to infer his attitude about extra ammunition.
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  10. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    TEXAS!
    There is the exception that proves the rule!

    Deaf
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  11. JohnBiltz

    JohnBiltz Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,478
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Just proves the unless your on fire or about to drown part of the rule. In his case both at the same time.
     
    scaatylobo and GRIZ22 like this.
  12. GRIZ22

    GRIZ22 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    See Kano383's post after yours.

    You can argue all your want but NYPD's statistics tell the facts. Go back to my earlier post in this thread where I relate a NYPD Detective who always qualified expert shot 5 times at a threat and hit him once...at a range of 6 feet.

    Fighters are not always the best shots. I learned this in SE Asia back in 1968. Even those guys who don't shoot that good at the range find the ability to focus on the task on hand.

    Like I said before, having been there done that, gunfighting is 95% mental and 5% skill and hardware.
     
  13. justice06rr

    justice06rr Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,574
    Location:
    Florida
    Its because people miss their shots, and not everyone is James Bond.

    The more the merrier right? Would you rather have less money and ammo, or more of both??

    Carrying a semiauto with 15rds is really not that difficult if you have the correct carry setup. People do it all the time, including women. If you think you need 6rds or less, or prefer a single-stack, that is your choice.
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  14. GRIZ22

    GRIZ22 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    I'd say JohnBlitz got it 100% correct. SGT Smith's valor is totally unrelated to what this thread is talking about
     
  15. GEM

    GEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,354
    Location:
    TX
    Here's a take that I got from a Tom Given's newsletter

    Looking at Tom Givens' latest newsletter, his analysis of capacity struck me as useful. The idea is a good take on the caliber debate. He was talking about capacity and how long you could stay in the fight.

    Assuming about 250 milliseconds between shots for the average person - a J frame keeps you in the fight for 1.25 seconds. An 8 shot 1911 for two seconds. A Glock 17 with 18 rounds (one chambered) is 4.5 seconds. That's a long time in a fight.

    Given the lack of real differences in stopping power with modern rounds, that's telling.

    It all boils down to a simple concept discussed by higher end experts. Are you carrying around the one person mugger be gone incident or also being ready for the most intense but rarer incident. Simba the Lion is irrelevant.

    I've taken the Tactical Anatomy class, so I am aware of those factors. Choose your risk profile and then pronounce they are God's truth for everyone. That's what this topic is always about.
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  16. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,880
    No one who has ever survived a gun fight has ever walked away saying, " I sure wish I'd had fewer rounds when this started".
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  17. usp9

    usp9 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,645
    Location:
    Bowling Green, Va
    This thread has become ridiculous.
     
  18. JohnBiltz

    JohnBiltz Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,478
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I usually explain it to people who have never fired a gun like this. Your on a golf course about to start a hole, your bringing your club through and 3 bullets land around your feet kicking up dirt. Where do you think that ball is going, because it isn't going to be the fairway. Then as more bullets are impacting you have to run back out there and hit the ball again. Think your score is going to be affected?
     
  19. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    12,148
    Location:
    DFW Area
    Yup, I agree completely. I don't think you read my post even though you quoted it. I have no problem believing that a person who shoots very well on the range might fall apart in a gunfight. But I do have a problem believing that a person who can NOT shoot on the range will magically be able to perform at a high level under the pressure of a gunfight.
    Are you reading my post, because that's not what I said. I have NO problem believing that a good shooter might perform badly in a gunfight. But I do have a problem believing that a person who can't shoot will perform well in a gunfight.
    Not being the "best shot" is very different from not being able to shoot. I have no problem believing that a good gunfighter might not be the top performer out of a field of shooters competing in a low-pressure shooting contest, but I do have a problem believing that a person who can't even shoot a passing grade will suddenly turn into a great gunfighter when someone starts shooting at him.
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  20. GRIZ22

    GRIZ22 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Keep in mind everyone in NYPD has to qualify. There is a standard to meet. Some just barely qualify and some shoot max scores with most somewhere in the middle.

    You keep saying "someone who can't shoot" . Thats not what I said. I said "how good someone does in qualifications".

    If you're on the NYPD and you don't qualify, you're not going to be carrying a gun. Ergo, you can't get in a gunfight can you?
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2017
  21. Kano383

    Kano383 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    East Africa
    Agreed, someone who can't shoot, can't shoot. What I meant is that being a poor shot on targets (not a hopeless one, just not competition material) is almost irrelevant at ten feet, the most important thing being the mental attitude, and the ability to retain control in a life-threatening situation.

    The response in these situations has a lot to do with instinctive reactions, fight or flight (or freeze... seen that too). The only way to really know how one handles it is to actually go through a real-life deadly encounter.
     
  22. GRIZ22

    GRIZ22 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    FWIW Audie Murphy, most decorated soldier of WW2, only qualified marksman in basic training. Thats the lowest level of demonstrated skill in the Army. Next comes sharpshooter then expert.

    Worthy of mention as that supports my statement about the best fighters are not always the best shots.
     
    Kano383 likes this.
  23. JohnBiltz

    JohnBiltz Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,478
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    If I could pick two abilities out of three: to shoot 2 inch groups at 50 yards; anticipate the situation before it is happening; being steady under life threatening stress. I would not pick being able to shoot 2 inch groups at 50 yards.
     
    Kano383 likes this.
  24. lsudave

    lsudave Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    122
    I'll go back on the original topic for a few remarks ;)...
    I think 6-9 rounds in a defensive handgun, for non-police, is really optimal. My reasoning- I figure that under duress, I can probably get 2-3 of six shots into a critical area of my assailant. If that doesn't stop him, he's likely upon me at that point, and I don't believe that another 8-10 rds will be of much use. 1 or 2 in a struggle, yes.
    If it's multiple attackers, I doubt they will wait around for me to finish one guy and then turn to the next; they will rush me and overwhelm me before I can take out 5-6 such guys. That's if one of my non-targets doesn't shoot me in turn.

    If we're talking about attackers who don't close on you, then you're really getting outside the role of a handgun. People yelling insults at 20 ft are not life-threatening, so shooting a bunch of them will get you in jail. If you are facing a group of shooters at any distance, then you're better with a rifle of some sort, preferably with selective fire and a large capacity... and some serious cover.
    If you truly anticipate being at a realistic risk of such an attack, you're better off open-carrying a carbine of some sort, and more to the point, reconsidering your place of habitation.

    Not nit-picking, because I own a lot of pistols that load 15 in the mag. But if I truly felt I needed all 15, I'd have an M4 or AK instead. And a couple buddies with the same, to keep from being flanked.
     
    loneviking and Kano383 like this.
  25. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    12,148
    Location:
    DFW Area
    You're exactly correct. I do keep saying that. I keep saying that because that's what I've been saying from the beginning. That's what I said in the initial post that you responded to as if I had said something incorrect. Here's my exact quote from post 178 on this thread.

    "... A person who scores really well on a square range qualification can still be a lousy gunfighter, but someone who can't shoot even under the controlled circumstances of qualification certainly won't develop amazing marksmanship/tactical skills when someone starts shooting at them."
    I suppose that if one constrains the situation to very close distances where shooting ability is almost irrelevant then shooting ability is almost irrelevant. However, I'm not sure that 10 feet is close enough to make shooting ability almost irrelevant. I've seen more than a few shooters at the local indoor range who could not consistently hit targets placed at 10 feet.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page