GBExpat
Member
I like that.... Slow skills are better than no skills. ...
I like that.... Slow skills are better than no skills. ...
It's an excellent skill to develop, improve, and maintain.For me the idea of training to reload in a self-defense gun fight is more about a complete proficiency with my carry gun and the will to survive than any realistic statistical likelihood I will need to. Do we even have a documented case of a justifiable self-defense shooting that a reload made the difference? I don't expect to ever use my CCW but if I do I will be able to use it fully and as a second-nature skill not something I have to expend valuable mental capacity on.
It's just a guideline, feel free to disagree.I don't really agree with that.
A five shot revolver may prove inadequate for a single "engagement", and so might a 1911.
Threads like this always follow the same path.
I am as supportive of everyone's right to carry any handgun they choose. What that choice is does not matter to me in the least.
We have had more than one thread recently showing the need for quite a number of hits--hits, not rounds fired--to stop one person.t's just a guideline, feel free to disagree.
Then don't leave the 20 rounder at home. I made a prediction at the beginning of this discussion that has proven true. The folks that have actually had to defend themselves aren't advocating for smaller, lower capacity guns
Duh.We have had more than one thread recently showing the need for quite a number of hits--hits, not rounds fired--to stop one person.
More shots is better. It weighs heavily on my decision.My question is, how much does capacity figure into your decision for a carry weapon?
An M1 Abrams Tank might prove inadequate for a single "engagement"I don't really agree with that.
A five shot revolver may prove inadequate for a single "engagement", and so might a 1911.
I am reasonably sure that most people who CCW ,do so with the "worst case scenario" as a measure to decide what capacity to EDC.We all know the various studies that tell us that "most" defensive situations involve around 2-3 shots fired to neutralize the threat. Also, "most" situations involving self-defense involve 1-2 aggressors at distances of 3-5 yards or less.
Hence the popular belief that a small pistol with a capacity of six rounds and minute of bad guy was adequate for self defense.
Numerous 9mm pistols have been popular the past couple of decades with a capacity of seven rounds or so for CCW.
Then Sig came out with the P365 which offered 10 rounds in the same size or less than similar pistols with 7 rounds of capacity. It sold like hot cakes. Then Springfield Armory came along with the Hellcat with 11 rounds. It is now in great demand.
But, I still see people saying that six, or seven, or eight rounds is plenty for self defense. The Shield, Glock 43, Walther PPS, etc. still sell well.
Heck, lots of folks still carry 5-shot J-frames and feel completely confident.
I have always liked to be prepared for the "what if" scenarios and was uncomfortable with less than 10 rounds of ammo capacity. Hence, I now carry a P365 with a 12-round magazine in the same space formerly occupied by a 6-shot XDS 40.
So, capacity matters to me. I am confident in the weapon platform and the comfort it offers.
Since there is much clamor for Glock, S&W, and Ruger to come out with pistols similar to the P365 and Hellcat in terms of size and capacity, it seems that there is a substantial demand for increased capacity.
My question is, how much does capacity figure into your decision for a carry weapon?
And one who's determined and only moderately fit can move twenty-one feet and inflict at least one potentially fatal stabbing or slashing wound with an edged weapon before a trained officer can draw and fire one center-mass shot from an open-carry rig … in a second and a half.
I am reasonably sure that most people who CCW ,do so with the "worst case scenario" as a measure to decide what capacity to EDC.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/vicious-new-york-city-mugging-caught-on-video-nypd
Not average encounter but was in the news today.
So, how do we fight that fight?
Agree wholeheartedly.More shots is better. It weighs heavily on my decision.
Sorry. My lovely wife of 49 years come June grew up down there. But we completed the Idaho Enhanced Conceal Carry class together last summer, and the Instructor warned us extensively about carrying a gun at all, no matter what it is, if we have to go down to "Calyfornia" for a visit or something. Our Idaho Enhanced Concealed Carry licenses have reciprocity with a lot of states, but not the state where my wife was born and raised.I have to go to Calyfornia at the end of the month.... UGH!!!!!
Ok,Ok, so I want to reword my comments to read " I carry for MY worst case scenario".You know, I am coming to believe that many of us aren't thinking about "worst case scenario" but rather "worst case scenario where I still win". That is at least partly why these threads can be a little impolite: the guy carrying X is thinking about a scenario where X is ideal and gets a little grumpy when presented with a scenario where Y is better. The guy advocating for Y gets similarly offended by the Z guy, and so on. So we're not really arguing about guns so much as scenarios, and trying to prove that our own imagined scenario is the more likely one - even though we don't really know anything about each other's location and lifestyle.
Ok,Ok, so I want to reword my comments to read " I carry for MY worst case scenario".
As expecting all to do the same.