How Much Capacity Is Needed?

[Nuclear]

Unless you carry a revolver, the magazine in your gun is probably the least reliable part of your gun, and easiest to replace, so you should carry a spare. In my opinion. I know we would all like to think we won’t miss, but the reality is we will miss when under life or death stress. So figure more rounds might be needed than the average of three.

 

[armoredman]

I also understand that magazines are the weak point in a semi auto pistol, and always recommend people carry at least one spare just in case. Some people never shoot that mag of expensive and hard to replace, (right now), carry ammo, and that mag might have some dirt/gunk migrated into it over time while waiting to buy another box of Critical Duty ammo. I try to rotate myself, but sometimes people with more limited means or "not-really-gun-people" might not.
I carry a fully loaded 15+1 sidearm with two spare mags. Always. And quite honestly, I certainly hope I never need the first round, much less the last one. But I like options in case of a really really bad day.

 

[Kleanbore]

Given the average number of shots fired during a gunfight is 3,

So we so often hear--but that is a questionable assertion. And averages do not matter.

a handgun with high capacity may not be needed.

It may not.

Using the 3 shot average, that means my 1911 and two spare magazines (25 rounds total) should be sufficient for fighting up to 8 adversaries.

Do you really imagine yourself beong afforded the opporunity to reload several times while being attacked?

Using my calculations, a 6 shot revolver should see you through a defense from two adversaries

"Should" and "can be reasonably relied upon to" are two different things.

Military and law enforcement needs the high capacity because of the probability they will face many adversaries during their work.

Why would an LEO be attacked by more persons at the same time than would I?

I usually leave the house only with the five shots I can load in my revolver but maybe I'll get a speed loader and put another 5 in my pocket

I doubt that anyone who has participated in a Tueller exercise (draw and fire in less than a second and a half, before a person can close from 21 feet) would fantasize about being able to add a reloading step into the same interval.

 

[LeftyRed]

I truly hate threads like this one and “minimum caliber you should carry” ones.
I don’t really care what folks carry or how much of it, and nor do I care what they think about what I carry. And yet I almost post in them. Why? Good question. Maybe it’s because I’m laid up recouping from shoulder surgery and haven’t been able to do poo in the barn or kennel for the last month.

But I do cringe at some of the folks attitude on carrying a certain caliber or a certain amount of ammo. I get that they think it’s a golden calf from the bad guys, even a Golden Fleece of sorts, to protect them when they go into harms way. That sort of thinking gets you killed in the military and LE. I’m thrown back to when I read The Fifty-First Dragon in middle school. Cliff Note version, a young knight was questioning his abilities on fighting dragons. An old wizard took the lad aside and told him a special word that would grant the lad special abilities of strength and protection from any dragons when uttered. Well, the lad goes out and kills 49 dragons. Is the hero of the village and everything. But when you goes out to battle his 50th dragon, he forgets what the magic word was! He is sitting on a rock trying to remember the word when a dragon appears and talks to him. They go back and forth on what the word might be, the dragon is just toying with him of course. And when the dragon goes to eat the lad, the lad remembers the word and just thinks it and kills the dragon. Confused, the lad goes back to the old wizard and tells him the story. The old wizard laughs and tells the lad that it was just a word and that it had no special powers. It was all him that killed those 50 dragons. Bewildered, the lad leaves. The next morning he goes to kill his 51st dragon……and never returns. I do fear that some of you think a certain caliber or pistol is what is going to save you in a real world incident. And you are going to get killed, or worst kill others due to your ego.

Lefty

 

[CDW4ME]

Post #22 - on average it takes two hits to incapacitate an attacker. Hits
Average hits for police using a "service" size pistol is about 50% of shots fired.
Lets entertain potential for two attackers; they average two hits each to stop, using LE 50% hit average thats 8 rounds fired.
Minimum 8 rounds in gun, regardless of location (yes, even in a "good area") + spare mag.

I'm not about minimums, so a Glock 23/32 + spare mag whenever, wherever.

 

[1942bull]

There is no meaningful answer to the question “How much capacity is needed.” Most people have never been not ever will be in a gunfight. I was in several in Nam when as a combat photographer I carried a M1811 with two extra mags. Twenty-one rounds always seemed enough until I cleared building in Hue City. Your adversary is aiming or shooting at you. Your adrenaline is rushing. Your senses be come keen. And if you have gotten over the fear of death you act quickly going for the kill shots. Still you do not always hit the adversary with each round fires. He is also trying to avoid being shot by firing at you. That can break your concentration and make you rely on instinctive training. On more than one occasion I fired more than 3 rounds to get just one hit. Is expended a 7 round magazine to take an adversary down in some encounters and only needed 1 shot in others. Making assumptions about round expenditures in a gunfight is not wise. Believe me, I would have preferred to have an M9 with2 extra mags in Hue.

Yes, some will respond that war is different than civilian encounters. I disagree. Whether you are confronted by one adversary of several and whether they are wearing uniforms or not the fact is they are out to take you down and out. A gunfight is a gunfight regardless of the circumstances.

In 2020 I made a switch in my EDC pistol. I had carried a Walther PPS M2. Based upon my experience in Nam I felt it’s capacity was adequate because I would be unlikely to get into a protracted gunfight in a civilian environment. I carried 2 extra magazines and all my magazines were 8 rounds so I had 24 +1. As 2020 played out and I say the increase I active shooter incidents and mob violence I rethought things very carefully. My goal of extracting myself from such an incident was keen. I am not interested in forcing my way into trouble. Exfiltrating can require cover fire as you move between elements of cover. That means firing rounds to keep the adversary occupied so you can make that fast dash to cover. You shoot before the dash and after it but not during it. That one dash could eat up 5 to six rounds. So I decided to change guns and go for more capacity. Today my EDC is a Ruger Security 9 Compact with a 15 round magazine along with 2 extra 15 round mags. That total capacity of 45 +1 is more reassuring than the 24 + 1 of my prior EDC.

Here is a dose of reality. Suppose you are in Walmart when two lunatics begin shooting at people. They between you and the doors. You are going to have to fight your way past them and/or fight them directly. Anyone who assumes that taking 2 adversaries who can shot at you can be done with 6 rounds is making a bad assumption. In brief, if you get into a gunfight you will likely wish you had more ammo because, there is a reason LEOs regularly carry high capacity pistols. History has made it clear that it is the better thing to do.

 

[GRIZ22]

Based on my experience those that think they are confident that putting one in the bad guy's boilermaker will most assuredly end the fight are fooling themselves.

Once upon a time detectives felt adequately armed with a 5 shot J frame. Now just about everyone carries a 15 shot 9mm. One needs to be equipped for the threat they think they'll meet.

If I knew I might be facing a Mumbai shooting I'd carry 2 15rd 9mms, an AR, and plenty of magazines. That is not the case. 99% of the time I feel adequately armed with a 5 or 6 shot revolver or more often a 7 shot 380 with at least one reload. I feel confident that will deal with what I'm confronted with.If I'm going to a high crime area I'll carry a 15rd 9mm, spare magazines, and a BUG.

 

[MedWheeler]

I've typically been carrying eight rounds of 9mm in the gun on my hip. I do not carry a reload for it. However, in my pocket are eight rounds of .32ACP, in a P32. On my other hip are ten more rounds of .32 in a spare magazine for that gun. I carry the reload for the BUG instead of for the primary for the possibility that I might end up somewhere where the belt gun isn't practical and have to stow it somewhere.

So, if I'm ever involved in an incident that requires me to actually fire, I'll come back and let you know how many of the 26 rounds it took. If I don't get back to you, then I lost the fight (most likely, long before I could have used them all.)

 

[MedWheeler]

1942Bull writes:

...there is a reason LEOs regularly carry high capacity pistols. History has made it clear that it is the better thing to do.

...though their mission is markedly different from ours. Police officers wouldn't need so many rounds if, every time someone who committed a crime and then fled, the cops would simply let them go. That's our mission. Why you hear of bad guys soaking up so many rounds of cops' bullets, but so few of ours, is because the cops keep re-engaging. The bad guys know the cops won't stop until the bad guys are in custody or in the morgue. Neither is desirable so, when the cops keep pursuing, the bad guys become more determined and desperate. In many of the defensive-discharge incidents we read about that have turned out poorly for the defender, it's because they attempted to detain the offender when the offender tried to escape.

You make a lot of other good points, and more ammo is certainly preferable (within practicality) than less, but the comparison of our missions to those of the police is a miss, in my opinion. As soon as I'm comfortable with my ammunition stock, I do intend to "qualify" a higher-capacity pistol (Taurus G2C) than my current PF9 for carry, but cops carry (and wear) a lot of things I'm not planning to. As of now, I'm typically carrying 26 rounds between two concealable pistols and a spare magazine for one of them. That's three more than what I had on me my first few years behind the badge, but that first sidearm, a .38 Special Model 67, was a lot less easy to keep concealed, and I wasn't required to.

In your Wal-Mart example, a concerning one indeed, I would simply wish while fighting that I was still a cop and had my vest on, my long gun at hand, and more cops around. A true dose of reality when examining active-shooter incidents, however, is that, as soon as the shooter(s) are engaged themselves, they typically self-extract and/or commit suicide.

 

[Styx]

Every poster on every capacity thread ever: "I carry exactly the right number. Anyone who carries more is some sort of tacticool gamer type, and anyone who carries less is just asking to get killed in a gunfight".

I carry a 5 round revolver. From polls on other firearm forums where well over a hundred participated, most didn't carry a reload. I'd be all for threads like this being banned. I carry what's right for me based on my personal circumstances and based on probability, statistics, and real world data. I don't care what others carry nor do I care about their opinions on what I carry. I pose this question in everyone of these threads, and no one has been able to answer it yet. Where are all the stories, news articles, videos, and/or any documentation whatsoever of civilians running out of ammo in a gun fight, and being assaulted or murdered as a result? Listening to some members on here, you'd think it would be somewhat common. They can't seem to back up their assertions with any real world data, yet they speak as if they can. They also disregard all the data that doesn't support how they feel.

As you stated, I think I'm perfectly fine with what I've been carrying, and they are overly worried and over stating something that has a 1 in a quadrillion chances of happening. They think and are convinced that in a gun fight at self defense distances I'm going to either miss most of my shots, the few hits I do get will just tickle my attacker, and/or will need 30 rounds to take my attacker down. Anything less, I'm going to die. They aren't changing my mind and I'm not changing theirs. It's mostly the same members regurgitating the same arguments over and over again whenever these threads pop up once a month. Kinda pointless...

 

[shafter]

View attachment 1008233
Here's my take on this subject:
Given the average number of shots fired during a gunfight is 3, a handgun with high capacity may not be needed. Of course, there are always examples where high capacity saved the day. But those instances are rare. Using the 3 shot average, that means my 1911 and two spare magazines (25 rounds total) should be sufficient for fighting up to 8 adversaries. This is a mathematical estimate that accepts my skill level being equivalent to the shooters the 3 shot average was based upon. I consider my skills to be above that average and work to develop and maintain my skill level. However, the prospect of taking on 8 adversaries with a handgun is daunting. I would give a more reasonable limit on the number of adversaries me and my 1911 can handle to be about 3 to 4. The 1911 is my everyday carry choice because I'm not expecting to engage in a gunfight with more than 4 adversaries. If I knew there were going to be more, I would carry a long gun with the pistol as backup. So any argument about ammo capacity is really about how many adversaries you realistically expect to engage in a possible gunfight. Military and law enforcement needs the high capacity because of the probability they will face many adversaries during their work. Most armed citizens simply won't ever face that much danger. This is among the reasons even the 'old/obsolete' revolver still performs admirably as an everyday carry defense tool. Using my calculations, a 6 shot revolver should see you through a defense from two adversaries with an additional two if you're carrying 6 more rounds and reloading skills are up to par.

I consider my 1911 a 'get out of trouble gun'. It's my everyday carry pistol that I will use to remove myself from danger. So I can escape or possibly retrieve a long gun.
I consider high capacity handguns 'get into trouble guns'. They should be used as backup to a long gun when one is deliberately moving to danger. Armed citizens aren't required to seek danger. Military and law enforcement seek it all the time.

Overall, for armed citizens, the amount of ammo to carry should be sufficient for three adversaries. 3 shot average times 3 equals 9 rounds total, at absolute minimum. A few more rounds will be better. But a high capacity handgun with 15 round magazines (46 rounds total) used as everyday carry is excessive. The mathematical estimate comes out at about 15 adversaries. The chances an armed citizen will face so many is incredibly small. You'll have better luck winning the lottery! And if you do actually face so many, its not going to matter if you're carry enough ammo. Your chances of surviving such an encounter is pretty much nil anyway. If you know you're going up against 15 adversaries, it's time to call your friends with guns.

Caliber plays a role in this subject too. Larger, more potent calibers will enhance survival given the small number of shots per adversary. You've got to stop the attack of the first adversary before you can deal with the second, then the third, and so on. 9mm, a typical high capacity caliber, is less likely to stop an attack with that 3 shot average compared to .45acp or other more potent calibers. As the number of adversaries goes up, the amount of time you have to defend yourself goes down. You will be lucky if you have the time to fire more than one shot before you have to deal with one of the other adversaries. This argues that you carry the most powerful handgun you can effectively shoot, not necessarily the handgun with the most capacity.

Timmy Green - former US Army Military Intelligence Officer and currently Firearms Inventor
Angle Degree Indicator, Guardian Grip, Second Zero...

I disagree with your math. Against multiple adversaries I believe the average of three rounds per attacker would go up and not remain the same.

At the end of the day there are too many variable to determine how many rounds will be needed. Attacker motivation and mindset, body type, drugs and alcohol on board, shot placement, etc will all be variable factors. My opinion has always been this. Zero rounds may be sufficient if you present your firearm and the attacker calls it quits. He might quit after you fire and miss, or it could take one, two, five, ten rounds etc. No one can know this in advance. The safest rule of thumb is to carry as many rounds as you practically can.

 

[Hangingrock]

Environment, environment, environment. I do not live in a densely populated, area but rather a rural area. We have a weekly newspaper that includes the County Sheriffs report along with the one major population center police department report. Shooting incidents are uncommon as opposed to common occurrences. My EDC is a S&W Shield 9X19mm along with an additional magazine. Also I'm not a knife fighter thus I don't carry a knife. What is more likely to occur is the use of my cell phone to contact the Sheriffs Dept.

 

[MedWheeler]

shafter writes:

I disagree with your math. Against multiple adversaries I believe the average of three rounds per attacker would go up and not remain the same.

That figure comes from averages of all defensive-shooting incidents. Many of those actually did include multiple-attacker situations; the statistic don't break that part down.

 

[1942bull]

1942Bull writes:
...though their mission is markedly different from ours. Police officers wouldn't need so many rounds if, every time someone who committed a crime and then fled, the cops would simply let them go. That's our mission. Why you hear of bad guys soaking up so many rounds of cops' bullets, but so few of ours, is because the cops keep re-engaging. The bad guys know the cops won't stop until the bad guys are in custody or in the morgue. Neither is desirable so, when the cops keep pursuing, the bad guys become more determined and desperate. In many of the defensive-discharge incidents we read about that have turned out poorly for the defender, it's because they attempted to detain the offender when the offender tried to escape.

You make a lot of other good points, and more ammo is certainly preferable (within practicality) than less, but the comparison of our missions to those of the police is a miss, in my opinion. As soon as I'm comfortable with my ammunition stock, I do intend to "qualify" a higher-capacity pistol (Taurus G2C) than my current PF9 for carry, but cops carry (and wear) a lot of things I'm not planning to. As of now, I'm typically carrying 26 rounds between two concealable pistols and a spare magazine for one of them. That's three more than what I had on me my first few years behind the badge, but that first sidearm, a .38 Special Model 67, was a lot less easy to keep concealed, and I wasn't required to.

In your Wal-Mart example, a concerning one indeed, I would simply wish while fighting that I was still a cop and had my vest on, my long gun at hand, and more cops around. A true dose of reality when examining active-shooter incidents, however, is that, as soon as the shooter(s) are engaged themselves, they typically self-extract and/or commit suicide.

I set a few of your word in bold because that is what I am going to address. Let me start by saying that I agree with everything you wrote. However, I never compared the mission of a LEO with that of a civilian. I have no law enforcement mission in the manner that police officers do. My goal (another mission) is to stay alive and uninsured. I think LEOs share that goal. LEOs have to engage to the end of battle. I just want to be able to shoot my out of the fight. For me that means more ammo is best. Thanks for a great reply.

 

[Kleanbore]

That figure comes from averages of all defensive-shooting incidents.

Source?

 

[hso]

the average number of shots fired during a gunfight is 3

I always find this interesting as the basis for making lifesaving decisions. "average" may be the mean or the mode in peoples' minds. If it is the mean, then you're looking at higher and lower values in the range of numbers. That's fine if you only need the lower range, but if you need any of the values above the mean you're sadly out of luck. If your "average" means mode, or the most common value, you're still out of luck since there are still higher numbers in the range of numbers that you're subject to. We don't decide you don't need to carry a gun because the mean or mode for a life threatening encounter is most commonly survival. We carry because the range of results includes deaths and permanent injuries and the catastrophic nature of those gives a greater risk to prepare for.

On another point, changing magazines takes time and effort and limiting your magazine capacity means more frequent magazine changes in a life or death encounter thereby increasing your risk. Why take on that risk when you're preparing for a rare life threatening situation?

You should carry the highest capacity firearm you can comfortably carry and shoot accurately in an emergency to avoid the pitfalls described.

 

[shafter]

So we so often hear--but that is a questionable assertion. And averages do not matter.

It may not.

Do you really imagine yourself beong afforded the opporunity to reload several times while being attacked?
Every attack is different. There are plenty of scenarios where there could be a brief lull that allows for a reload.

"Should" and "can be reasonably relied upon to" are two different things.

Why would an LEO be attacked by more persons at the same time than would I?
Really? Because their job is to respond to, or actively seek out trouble and usually find it in situations a private citizen would never find themselves such as executing a warrant or stopping a car packed with armed criminals. LEO don't have the luxury of avoiding the bad part of town after dark.

I doubt that anyone who has participated in a Tueller exercise (draw and fire in less than a second and a half, before a person can close from 21 feet) would fantasize about being able to add a reloading step into the same interval.
Not every attack involves someone running full speed at you with a knife. Not everyone who is faced with that situation just stands there either.

 

[Kleanbore]

Every attack is different. There are plenty of scenarios where there could be a brief lull that allows for a reload.

I'll say very few, except for sworn officers in pursuit, and I sure would not want to have to rely on that happening,

 

[GEM]

From the White House Desk of President Joseph Biden:

I write you to support my push for a ban of higher capacity magazines. I have researched the usage of firearms in self-defense scenarios, criminal activities and the rampages of the disturbed and terrorists.

It is clear that that self-defense only requires 3 rounds. I quote an expert from thehighroad.com - a well respected Internet forum of gun enthusiasts:

I have never heard of a civilian self defense shooting needing more than three or four rounds, and I think I’m being generous.

Higher round counts are only the domain of criminals, the disturbed and terrorists. Thus, by banning and confiscation higher capacity magazines we can start to remove them from the ends of the lethal miscreants that plague our society.

5 is enough. Join me in making this the law of the land. For America!

President Joseph Biden.

--- Now, we have run this thread topic a hundred times with the same conclusions. There is nothing new in the discussion. Maybe, that the folks who discuss statistics actually don't know anything about statistics and risk (as Kleanbore, hso, and I have pointed out repeatedly).

Don't send your contributions to the gun rights organizations. Support Joe and 5 is enough! If you wish.

 

[Charlie Martinez]

They say that nobody comes out of a knife fight without a cut. I think the same principle applies to close quarter gunfights. In a close quarter gunfights having plenty of extra ammo is not a bad thing but most probably the conflict will last a few seconds and if it is not decisively resolved with 5 shots or less I don't think our chances of leaving the situation on our feet will be very good.

I believe that having as much extra ammo as possible is much more important to law enforcement or military personnel because they are much more likely to engage in an extended shootout situation than a civilian.

 

[Charlie Martinez]

I want to make very clear that I do not agree with Joe Biden's policies on guns and many other issues. I think all law abiding citizens have the right to decide what to carry and how much ammo we want in our weapons. All I'm saying is that anyone that relies on a lot of ammo to win a close quarters gunfight is fooling themselves.

 

[cslinger]

What I always find funny is that if we are sitting around the forum or bar or fire plt BS’ing everything is mathematic, clinical. “The average this, the caliber that, the chance of occurring etc. etc. “

The REALITY is that if God forbid you are ever in life or death fight (notice I don’t say gunfight) you are gonna want EVERY advantage, cheat, bit of luck, etc. you can get. The fight might be over in 2 rounds but I promise you you wont have been thinking nor will your thoughts afterward be gee statistically it all worked out I am going to keep carrying this X (jframe whatever). You are likely thinking holy hell this just happened to ME!! I need a bigger gun and knives and I akido etc. etc.

Now this is not me saying you should simply go buy the highest capacity biggest caliber pistol you can fine, nor is me saying maybe a beltfed is warranted. I am just saying when everything goes teets up you are not going to be thinking statistics.

MINDSET
PRACTICE
SKILLS
HAVE A TOOL OR TOOLS THAT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE AND PROFICIENT WITH. (an itty bitty gun might be easy to carry but hard to shoot. A giant 21 shot semi might be too difficult to carry and or shoot for a given person. Find a gun that is as big as you are comfortable with, in a caliber you are comfortable with, with as much capacity as possible in your envelope and be one with it)
AVOIDANCE AT ALL COSTS
AND IF YOUR PROVERBIAL BALLOON GOES UP USE ALL OF THE ABOVE AND CHEAT.

if you do all of that……..you still might get killed. So avoidance at all costs.

My uneducated 2 cents.

For what its worth I have carried J-Frames so I have certainly “played the numbers” myself and I do believe, at least around the old fire pit , that having ANY gun in the vast majority of instances will statistically see you through. My problem is I KNOW I will be the idjit who gets stuck with Conan The Meth Addled Speech Impaired barbarian who is too big, too high and too stupid to know “the fights over”. So I would rather prepare for Conan the speech impaired and have to deal with the waify, scared crackhead then the other way around.

 

[mcb]

Capacity can be as much of a crutch as anything else (caliber, semi-auto vs revolver etc) in self-defense weapons/tools. The gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less, and ultimately only as good as the person using it. I will take the person with the J-frame that trains and practice, over the person with multiple high capacity magazines for a semi-auto that thinks capacity somehow makes up for practice. Your defense plan should not be fully reliant on any single piece of hardware.

 

[GEM]

Who says that all gun fights are going to be close quarter, single opponents? Where I used to work, the biggest risk was a rampage that might be at a longer distance, might have multiple opponents. It might be rare but a gun fight itself is rare.

Now I have trained intensively with higher capacity guns AND lower capacity guns such as J frames and G42s. That being said - if dress and circumstances allow, I carry a 9mm and an extra mag or two. I have a fair amount of quality FOF with the best so I am not reliant on a piece of hardware. The 'best' so to speak, recommend a similar outfit if it is convenient.

We know that most carry carriers have little to none training. That is their choice. If they think they are warriors with a Taurus 85, that's for them to decide.

As President Joe says, you don't need to rely on hardware. THR agrees! Muh rightz - what about the children? Why do you allow access to instrumentality you don't need and then spread to the evil doers?

 

[DeepSouth]

Sometimes, I carry my primary gun, with a spare mag, and a bug, and spare mag for the bug, and another bug.

Sometimes I carry a derringer, all by its lonesome. Heck, sometimes (albeit rarely) I just carry a SpyderCo.