That's just the point. Do you prepare assuming the worst, or do you just go with what you hope will be the average encounter according to the statistics?
As often as the statistics are stated, "statistically", that sounds to be the basis for choices and plans for many, when these sort of discussions come up.
I like handguns, and shoot them often. I prefer revolvers.Anyway, suggestions are encouraged. What would you get?
I suggest you first go out and try some full load 357's in a 2" or 3" barrel small frame revolver. If you are ok with that the earlier suggestions of an SP-101 or the Colt Cobra series are good. Full load 357's are not easy on arthritic hands.I have a couple of carry guns: PX4compact; S&W CS9 & CS45; Sig .40 250; and Smith 6906. Plus a S&W 642 for pocket carry. That's more than enough variety. (There's also a .38/32 S&W Terrier, but that's edging into not enough uumph territory I fear.)
Then I snagged a Smith .380 Shield EZ at a very, very good price and I told myself I'll put it away for when I have difficulty managing the slide on any of the others.
Then I started thinking maybe I should get a 9mm Shield EZ (or Walther CCP) for a bit more firepower (and the aforementioned easy-to-rack-slide) for my old age.
But it hit me that was discounting the easiest handgun of all to operate even with the arthritis I don't yet have: a revolver. No slide at all to worry about.
Now my 642 is +P rated so that's not a bad bullet. But what about .357 or .44 special?
Shouldn't I be considering something easily carried, say a 2" or 3" barrel, in my dotage?
So, if I were going to get a revolver for IWB carry and replace, say, my 6906, what should it be?
(And price is a consideration. And so is recoil, I don't want some dainty, lightweight frame for full-load 357's; and how much, if anything, does one get out of a .357 in a 2" barrel versus a +P .38 (yeah, I gotta do a bit more research I think).
Anyway, suggestions are encouraged. What would you get?
I have had four DGU's in seventy seven years. No shots were fired in any of them.I have only had one self defense incident in my 72 yrs. It occurred in1969. It took me exactly one shot to end it. ....That’s my real world experience. Your experience is yours....
That's the best you have. The issue is clear. 5 is enough because it served me is baloney. Then when this is pointed out, folks pout.
That usually posted by people that have never fired a round in self defense.
I could post 3 civilian examples (LE examples never count for them) where 5 hits failed to incapacitate singe attacker, IME it changes nothing; they dismiss or rationalize them.
Training issue.In my own experience, I find that if I know I have 20 rounds to fight with, I'd most likely just start pulling the trigger. Knowing I have less, would force me to take a split second to place my shot.
Almost. To effect an immediate physical stop, a defender will have to hit small invisible things within the attacker's body while the target is closing fast. Doing so is a matter of chance. More hits provide a greater chance.So.....for a lot of people, it really doesn't matter how many you rounds you carry unless you can place a shot under extreme pressure.
The question arises, is the "average" 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 and what does "average" really mean? If we are referring to the "median", then half of the instances in the sample required fewer rounds and half required more. If we refer to the "mean", then we total up all the rounds fired in the sample and divide by the number of instances. If we refer to the "mode", we list each instance in the sample (for sake of argument lets say 1037) and cite the middle instance (in this case instance number 518). My point is that statistical analysis is not helpful in this discussion, since at least half of the sample required more rounds than the "average"They say the average civilian gunfight is 2 to 5 rounds
An even better point is that neither the mode, the mean, nor the median of prior events, is of any use to us whatsoever for assessing the likely needs in a future event.My point is that statistical analysis is not helpful in this discussion, since at least half of the sample required more rounds than the "average"
The question arises, is the "average" 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 and what does "average" really mean? If we are referring to the "median", then half of the instances in the sample required fewer rounds and half required more. If we refer to the "mean", then we total up all the rounds fired in the sample and divide by the number of instances. If we refer to the "mode", we list each instance in the sample (for sake of argument lets say 1037) and cite the middle instance (in this case instance number 518). My point is that statistical analysis is not helpful in this discussion, since at least half of the sample required more rounds than the "average"
When the bone spur on my LH elbow acts up and makes slide racking difficult, I strap on a K6s.If for whatever number of reasons you couldn't find a way to manipulate a semiauto then by all means carry a revolver.