How Much Capacity Is Needed?

[mcb]

Of course not, and I said so before.

I do not :"anticipate" threats, but I mitigate different risks.

Bears vs thugs? That's really more of difference in circumstance--bear county vs not bear country, and we can usually carry things we cannot carry in the inner city--than a game of trying to play with probabilities on a continuum.

So bear country v non-bear country is ok for anticipating threats but gang country vs non-gang country is not?

 

[Kleanbore]

So bear country v non-bear country is ok for anticipating threats but gang country vs non-gang country is not?

I'm not sure how a defensible attack in "gang country" would differ from an attack in "non-gang country".

One civilian cannot arm for a riot, and one should not expect magazine capacity, extra mags, etc. to adequately mitigate the risk being a vicim in one.

It goes back to this:

If one thought they were going to need a pistol at all they wouldn't go there, right.
Yes, some areas are inherently more dangerous than others, but people are mobile.
I'm not carrying for the friendly people I typically encounter walking the dogs in my "good area" - threat(s) anticipated to come from elsewhere.
Since threats are anticipated to come from elsewhere, the elsewhere gun gets carried everywhere

But as you pointed out , clothing constraints may prevent that strategy from being viable all the time.

 

[gyp_c2]

Move, mark, mitigate...3 Ms of risk management.

In the professional world, there is concern that 10 round mag limits might become nation wide, so training with the 10 round slim lines is being current. You may not be aware of such developments.

I have others. I also continue to witness the California of Colorado and changes in the anti-gun climate, such as mag limits. Since it's fairly likely to get worse, I bought and use a 43x.
M-M-M
Move it, Mark it, Mitigate it...

 

[WrongHanded]

I do not :"anticipate" threats, but I mitigate different risks.

Sorry to just jump in on this debate, but I have to ask. You don't anticipate threats? But you do mitigate risks?

But in this case, the risk is a potential threat to your safety. How do you assess that potential risk (or threat to your safety)? Anticipate it? Sounds like a game of semantics to me.

 

[mavracer]

Well, we usually find your posts amusing for being irrelevant. In the professional world, there is concern that 10 round mag limits might become nation wide, so training with the 10 round slim lines is being current. You may not be aware of such developments.

I'm not sure using the guberments arbitrary mag limit to answer what is "needed" is the intellectual slam you think it is.
What does it have to do with what is actually needed to stop more than the one mugger that flees?

 

[GEM]

Thanks for making my point.

 

[WrongHanded]

Well, we usually find your posts amusing for being irrelevant. In the professional world, there is concern that 10 round mag limits might become nation wide, so training with the 10 round slim lines is being current. You may not be aware of such developments.

If magazine capacity limits are the concerns, why not step up to a more powerful cartridge for your 10+1 firearm, rather than step down in size, weight and possibly barrel length? Seems like either way, you end up with more recoil as a result, and the same capacity.

 

[Kleanbore]

Sorry to just jump in on this debate, but I have to ask. You don't anticipate threats? But you do mitigate risks?

But in this case, the risk is a potential threat to your safety. How do you assess that potential risk (or threat to your safety)? Anticipate it? Sounds like a game of semantics to me.

A risk is not a threat. A risk is a chance that a threat may materialize. It might be thought of as a "potential threat," but if one actually expected the threat to materialize, we would be way beyond risk management

If I actually anticipated a threat, I would avoid it by being elsewhere.

But in risk management, I identify a risk, and I analyze it with respect to likelihood of occurrence and the seriousness of potential consequences. I then consider possible mitigation strategies.

The next step is to decide wither to accept the risk unmitigated, or to mitigate it.

 

[GEM]

If magazine capacity limits are the concerns, why not step up to a more powerful cartridge for your 10+1 firearm, rather than step down in size, weight and possibly barrel length? Seems like either way, you end up with more recoil as a result, and the same capacity.

Because, if you know the professional world - the quality 9mm rounds are seen as sufficient. We can add a caliber war to this already repetitious thread, but why?

Also, with shooting the larger caliber rounds in the smaller guns is harder to achieve competence. One might ask why the 5 is enough crowd do not carry full bore 357s in the light weight J frames? That's because they are pretty hard to shoot.

A G26 is easier to shoot than a G27. Again, most people don't train anway. If the did, they would know these kinds of issues.

 

[WrongHanded]

Because, if you know the professional world - the quality 9mm rounds are seen as sufficient. We can add a caliber war to this already repetitious thread, but why?

Also, with shooting the larger caliber rounds in the smaller guns is harder to achieve competence. One might ask why the 5 is enough crowd do not carry full bore 357s in the light weight J frames? That's because they are pretty hard to shoot.

A G26 is easier to shoot than a G27. Again, most people don't train anway. If the did, they would know these kinds of issues.

I wasn't really looking to add a caliber war. It just seems that a potential future magazine capacity restriction law is more of an excuse to go smaller, than a genuine reason.

Sure a G26 is easier to shoot than a G27 (do you think I don't know that?). But that's not addressing my point. The most common 9mm pistol is surely a G19, which holds 15+1. The most popular new CC pistol may well be the Sig P365, which holds 10+1. But if you're going from 15+1 to 10+1, why choose a smaller, lighter weight pistol which will recoil more, with a shorter barrel that grants less muzzle velocity? Why not just get a G23 with 10 round of .40 in the magazines and 1 in chamber?

How does the P365 compare to a G23 for shootability? Or for that matter, why choose a smaller 9mm at all? Why not just carry that G19 (which was fine with 15+1) with 10 rounds mags and keep the same level of shootability?

Perhaps you personally carry (I don't know) a G48, which appears to be just a slimmer G19. But most people seem to be going smaller in all dimensions.

As I said, I think it's just an excuse to carry a smaller lighter gun. If that's what a person wants to do, they don't need to make excuses for it. I'm currently carrying a G33 rather than a G32....because it's easier to carry. It's a compromise, and I know it. And it's a compromise based on my own laziness. So is carrying a smaller lower capacity 9mm whilst claiming it's because of some potential future law, that may or may not happen.

 

[WrongHanded]

A risk is not a threat. A risk is a chance that a threat may materialize. It might be thought of as a "potential threat," but if one actually expected the threat to materialize, we would be way beyond risk management

If I actually anticipated a threat, I would avoid it by being elsewhere.

But in risk management, I identify a risk, and I analyze it with respect to likelihood of occurrence and the seriousness of potential consequences. I then consider possible mitigation strategies.

The next step is to decide wither to accept the risk unmitigated, or to mitigate it.

So the risk you are attempting to mitigate (depending on your assessment of its likelihood), isn't the risk of a threat? Or it is the risk of a threat? Are you assessing the likelihood of anticipating a potential threat? How do you assess the likelihood of an unknown potential threat, in order to choose what level of risk mitigation you would implement? Or must it be a known potential threat? If so, how do you mitigate the risk of an unknown potential threat? And what form of mitigation might you choose based on your assessment of the likelihood of the occurrence and seriousness of the potential consequences of such risk? And would that be for the known risk, or also the unknown risk?

 

[Hugger-4641]

My engineering training says I need a safety factor of at least 2, preferably 3. So if I think I need 6rds, then I want 12 or more

 

[Kleanbore]

My engineering training says I need a safety factor of at least 2, preferably 3. So if I think I need 6rds, then I want 12 or more

Good comment, Yes, a margin is most desirable. But since no one has, or can have, any reasonable way of predicting what will be fired, that doesn't help us that much.

We have to guess what we may need, balance that against what we would likely be reasonably able to use, and then think about safety factors.

 

[mcb]

My engineering training says I need a safety factor of at least 2, preferably 3. So if I think I need 6rds, then I want 12 or more

Fighters are frequently designed with little or no safety factor (1-1.25). If you want maximum performance you use the entire design envelope.

If you used a safety factor of 3 a Falcon 9 probably could not make it to orbit.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Fighters are frequently designed with little or no safety factor (1-1.25). If you want maximum performance you use the entire design envelope.

If you used a safety factor of 3 a Falcon 9 probably could not make it to orbit.

Maybe true for most of the craft, but I would be willing to bet that parts of the system are designed with a safety factor of 2.

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

So figure more rounds might be needed than the average of three.

One mag of 8+1 in God's Caliber will almost always be more than enough. If not, I carry a second mag.

 

[GEM]

I carry a G26 being in a ten round state. I shoot it decently as compared to a 19. No reason to buy a 48 on my budget. If SCOTUS ever got off it’s butt, I’d go to a 19. I had a 27 and didn’t like it. I can shoot a 1911 with no problem and ditched the 40 for 9 and 45. The 26 is a convenient size as compared to the 1911.

 

[Kleanbore]

It just seems that a potential future magazine capacity restriction law is more of an excuse to go smaller, than a genuine reason.

Lower capacity does not necessarily mean smaller or lighter.

 

[mcb]

Lower capacity does not necessarily mean smaller or lighter.

My favorite pocket carry...

More realistically a Model 10 Heavy Barrel weights more and is larger than a loaded Glock 19 despite the 6 vs 15 capacity difference. There are lots of similar comparison.

That said when you go super light and small you almost always give up capacity. It hard to get a handgun under ~12 oz loaded that holds more than 7 or 8 rounds of anything centerfire.

 

[WrongHanded]

Lower capacity does not necessarily mean smaller or lighter.

No, it doesn't. Why bother stating the obvious? It has nothing to do with my point.

When the argument FOR a smaller lighter gun with lower capacity is based on some potential future magazine capacity law, I consider that an excuse. Not a reason. And I think everyone using it as an excuse should just admit that to themselves. And also admit that regardless of capacity, a smaller lighter gun is harder to shoot (generally speaking), so they are working against themselves out of laziness.

 

[Kleanbore]

No, it doesn't. Why bother stating the obvious? It has nothing to do with my point.

Your "point" was that carrying a lower capacity firearm is an excuse to carry a lighter and smaller one.

To point out that that does not follow, I stated "the obvious".

 

[mavracer]

Your "point" was that carrying a lower capacity firearm is an excuse to carry a lighter and smaller one.

To point out that that does not follow, I stated "the obvious".

His point was that ignoring the drawbacks of carrying a smaller gun using the mag ban aspect as an excuse is just that an excuse.
Much like many here that chose to only look at benefits and ignore drawbacks.
And there certainly seems to be a trend to the ultra compact 10+1 9mm now that Ruger, Smith and Taurus have jumped on the bandwagon.

 

[WrongHanded]

Your "point" was that carrying a lower capacity firearm is an excuse to carry a lighter and smaller one.

To point out that that does not follow, I stated "the obvious".

No. You're wrong. That wasn't my point (as if you'd know what my point is better than I do). And if you think it was you need to go re-read the post from GEM that I originally quoted.

ETA: The reason you're wrong is because you're putting the emphasis in entirely the wrong place. And as you can see from the post that I wrote (part of which you quoted to then state the obvious) I did actually suggest that a person could simply use their larger gun with a 10 round magazine. Which is why you were infact "stating the obvious". Meaning there was no point mentioning it. But you had to take it out of context and ignore the part of my post where I addressed that specifically.

 

[Kleanbore]

No. You're wrong. That wasn't my point

Your point was that the possibility of a magazine capacity limitation is an excuse to carry a smaller gun. I don't see it that way.

One can carry a lower capacity semi auto for other reasons.

I carry a single column pistol with a capacity of less than ten rounds. My reasons have nothing to do with concerns about what laws may be enacted--but that is irrelevant.

It is larger than many, and it is nicely longer than a Sig 365.

 

[Kleanbore]

If I were buying a new semi-auto today, along with some magazines and a custom holster and enough ammo to try it out, I would probably tend to stay within a ten round capacity to reduce the risk of wasting the money.

I could choose ten-shot magazines for a double column, but they would likely become difficult to obtain.

I do prefer carrying a single stack pistol. But I do not like pistols with short barrels and short sigh radii.

A lot of people are buying short, light pistols these days. I suspect that few buyers are yet concerned about future limits, and that most just put concealabilty over shootability in terms of priority.