How Much Capacity Is Needed?

[mcb]

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.

Why are you buying a ten round capacity gun?

 

[Kleanbore]

Why are you buying a ten round capacity gun?

I'm not buying anything, but it I were buying a ten round capacity gun it would be largely because I prefer the single stack for all-day comfort, and partly to reduce the risk of forfeiting a good part of the investment if things go poorly on the legislative front.

I carry an eight round gun. I would prefer ten, but the gun I want does not come that way.

 

[mcb]

I'm not buying anything, but it I were buying a ten round capacity gun it would be largely because I prefer the single stack for all-day comfort, and partly to reduce the risk of forfeiting a good part of the investment if things go poorly on the legislative front.

I carry an eight round gun. I would prefer ten, but the gun I want does not come that way.

With regard to the bolded statement above: Each to his own but that is a horribly pessimistic way to live.

The libertarian in me says, "Come and Take It!"

 

[CDW4ME]

Why wouldn't you carry different weapons depending on location and conditions? When I am around town I need it to be concealed so I carry a smaller gun that is easier to conceal. When I head out to the hunting property I no longer feel the need or advantage to concealment so I step up to a much larger more shootable handgun and often have a rifle handy too. I can comfortably conceal a larger more capable gun under my winter wardrobe than I can my summer wear. Why would you not step up when you can and step down when needed?

My comment / philosophy is from the perspective of just in town/city/suburbs.
A Glock 32 is easy for me to conceal, even in FL heat, this is accomplished with a loose chronically untucked shirt.
I am disinclined to "step down" from a Glock 19/23/32 - no reason to.

this is from the guy carrying a J-frame more often than not. .

How so, if you're going to go in bear country are you going to carry the same gun that you carry on you in the inner city? I suspect not, an why not, because you anticipate different threats.

I'll use your J-frame as my example; I don't go to bear country, but I sometimes go to Wal-Mart (arguably just as dangerous)
In my example Wal-Mart is perceived as an area of "greater threat" and Glock 32 + spare mag is carried.
I do not anticipate my neighborhood to have same threat potential as Wal-Mart, my perception is low threat potential in neighborhood.
However, threat would be the same (human attackers) if I had to defend myself at Wal-Mart or walking down the street.
It would be convenient to stick a 38 snub in my pocket to walk the dogs; but, would I prefer to defend myself with a 38 snub or a Glock 32?
Perspective: Glock 32 averages 1,358 fps with 125 HST, has good sights, grip big enough to accommodate my fingers, is easy to shoot quick & accurate.
I'd prefer the Glock 32 whether walking down the street or wherever (city/town/suburbs) so I make the effort to carry it (+ "unnecessary" spare mag).

 

[Hartkopf]

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

I agree.

I believe this entire discussion comes down to what mindset you have about safety factors, spare parts and redundancy. (was that redundant?)

The more I see things break, people run out of things, shortages everywhere, the more I am convinced my outlook is correct. I carry the most capacity I can.

The perceived threat way of thinking means nothing to me because anything can happen. And as always, the odds mean nothing to me either, because the stakes are so high. I carry a Glock 17 everyday, everywhere I legally can.

 

[WrongHanded]

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.

Again, you are missing the context.

"Professionals" selling defensive gun training to civilians (known in the business world as customers) are telling their customers that because there may be a future magazine capacity limit law - which as the narrative would presumably have it, will limit their capacity to 10 round magazines and not allow them to keep all their existing magazines of a higher capacity - they can and should aquire a smaller and lighter weight lower capacity gun. And they should get it now, so that they don't need to retrain on a new gun later.

This is telling the customer exactly what they want to hear. Because they want to carry a small and light weight convenient pistol, but still want enough capacity with a cartridge that will get the job done. These "professionals" are giving them permission to make do with less, whilst selling it as a great idea, and as something that the customer will ultimately have to adjust to eventually anyway. Which of course is not necessarily true.

But if the customer is not a moron, they already know that (State restrictions aside), they CAN carry a larger and heavier firearm that they shoot better, which also holds more ammunition. In which case, they are being lazy and choosing to use an excuse to carry less, rather than having a truly valid reason for doing so.

 

[GEM]

I did not say that trainers are pushing customers to buy the 10 round guns. I said that since such guns are used in ban states and more bans are possible, the trainers are working out with such guns.

Also, people committed to training are running such guns to see how they work and to achieve competence. Are some carrying the slim guns for convenience, I'll agree that they are. However, 10 rounders seem the standard and going below that except for dress mandated pocket guns is not recommended. Now, folks do carry with just the J frame or pocket semi. The big difference is that it is admitted that they are taking a risk and limiting themselves to an one opponent gun, not saying (as many do) that carrying more is stupid or paranoid because of some 3,3,3 blather being what always happens.

The lazy folks are the Taurus 85 fired twice a year at the square range crowd.

 

[Kleanbore]

"Professionals" selling defensive gun training to civilians (known in the business world as customers) are telling their customers that because there may be a future magazine capacity limit law - which as the narrative would presumably have it, will limit their capacity to 10 round magazines and not allow them to keep all their existing magazines of a higher capacity - they can and should aquire a smaller and lighter weight lower capacity gun. And they should get it now, so that they don't need to retrain on a new gun later

Really?

I see that GEM has already responded to that.

This is telling the customer exactly what they want to hear. Because they want to carry a small and light weight convenient pistol, but still want enough capacity with a cartridge that will get the job done.

Did you not acknowledge that a firearm with lower capacity is not necessarily smaller and lighter, and say that saying so is stating "the obvious"?

Do you know of any first tier professional trainers who offer instruction in defensive pistol shooting who actually recommend bringing small, light, subcompact pistols to class?

 

[Hangingrock]

My EDC is a S&W Shield 9X19mm capacity 8+1. The Shield is extremely easy to shoot, size and weight matters not. I hear I can't shoot a small and light adequately. My thoughts on hearing that is you most likely can't shoot the MP9 with a capacity 17+1 adequately either. Excuses are like backsides everyone has one. I've jokingly written that I've fired enough 45 ACP to fill several 55Gal drums with the empties. How a small 9X19mm caliber handgun is difficult to shoot is beyond me at anticipated self defensive shooting situations that Tom Givens eludes to in the two books he authored on self defensive applications.

 

[WrongHanded]

I did not say that trainers are pushing customers to buy the 10 round guns. I said that since such guns are used in ban states and more bans are possible, the trainers are working out with such guns.

GEM, you may have said something about ban states, but you didn't say it to me. And you're absolutely right that you didn't say they were pushing 10 round guns. Did I use that word? Perhaps I did, I can't seem to find it. But I think what I said was that they were advocating for it, and "giving permission" to customers to do so. And that is different, though perhaps subtly.

 

[WrongHanded]

Really?

I see that GEM has already responded to that.

Did you not acknowledge that a firearm with lower capacity is not necessarily smaller and lighter, and say that saying so is stating "the obvious"?

Do you know of any first tier professional trainers who offer instruction in defensive pistol shooting who actually recommend bringing small, light, subcompact pistols to class?

Yes, really. Simple extrapolation of the information I have received here on this site (some from you) coupled with the business model of following the market and "the customer is always right".

Did I acknowledge that a firearm with lower capacity is not necessarily smaller or lighter? Sure did. In the post you originally quoted from to then tell me what was so obvious. Here:

Why not just carry that G19 (which was fine with 15+1) with 10 rounds mags and keep the same level of shootability?

I don't know that any particular trainer would recommend bringing a small light compact pistol to class. Though I do seem to remember you saying Pincus advocates a single stack 10+1, didn't you? So how small and compact are we talking? But I also don't know that they'd turn anyone away or tell them they really need a larger gun for a CC because what they have is too small.

 

[Kleanbore]

Though I do seem to remember you saying Pincus advocates a single stack 10+1, didn't you?

I said that for IWB carry, he personally prefers to carry a single stack--but not a subcompact.

He tested and selected a Springfield XDS 9 4.0 for that purpose. Those have a capacity of 8+1.

Partly because I like the grip safety, and partly on the strength of Rob's reliability testing, I bought one. I found OWB carry more comfortable

It is large enough and heavy enough, but they are no longer offered. The 4.0 version was much more shootable than the shorter one.

I am not fond of the trigger pull.

Rob has said that for his own IWB carry, he prefers a full size 10+1 single-stack pistol, with either a grip safety or no separate safety at all. He started working with Avidity Arms who were developing one. But then Glock introduced something along those lines.

I have since procured a Smith and Wesson EZ 9. It has a better trigger than my XDS, it has a grip safety, and it is large enough and heavy enough for me.

When I last attended an I.C. E. PDS course, a service-size semi-auto was required, and a good OWB holster was strongly recommended.

In the class, he used a double-stack Glock, OWB. That was some time ago.

 

[fastbolt]

Folks, if your training, skills development and skills maintenance is within whatever you consider to be reasonable, to enable you to appropriately react to a threat, then we're down to talking personal risk assessment and gear.

How to determine personal exposure to risk and risk assessment? Well, that's the trick, isn't it? Prudent and reasonable ... or disproportionate and paranoid? Bare fear or reasonable fear? I don't presume to have the answer for anyone else.

Since I lawfully carried concealed weapons while carrying a full-time or a reserve badge for more than 3 decades, and I was exposed to enough activity and training to enable me to feel some confidence in assessing risks and threat environments, I'll decide when and how to make such an assessment for myself.

The gear subset of how much ammunition to carry ... because we can't ever know how much may be needed for any particular threat that may come along? Well, don't just limit your consideration to what's in the handgun. Even an 18rd magazine might not be enough. If that's the case, now we're talking about how many magazines. Or speedloaders/strips for revolvers. How to decide, right?

Well, for those of us who carried service revolvers and spare ammo on-duty, it was often 6 rounds in the revolver and an additional 12 rounds. (More, if agency policy didn't prohibit it.) Service pistols? Well, it was often whatever was provided, required or permitted. From low-cap to hi-cap. You worked with what you had, or what you were required or permitted to use and carry. If the gun & mags weren't what you'd really prefer? Then you worked on skill in using whatever it was, because that might be what made the difference in coming out the other end of a problem.

Even John Wick ran out of hi-cap magazines. This is what happens when screenwriters and actors use popular 3-gun training and skills to make actors appear more realistic and to embellish violent scenes involving guns in movies. Many gun enthusiasts focus on what's essentially become gun porn in TV and Movies ... and on the other hand, some trainers watch an actor's character portrayed in a fall off a balcony, onto his back, and then wonder marvel at the character not being crippled as he pulls a G26 from a SOB holster, which, according to the story-line, he's just fallen onto from height.

Joking aside, rather than try to convince other folks what they should do, perhaps what we can best do is stay in our own lane and try to make informed decisions for ourselves. Trainers? Well, while I hung up my own trainer hat almost 4 years ago, the longer I was at it, the less inclined I was to shill guns and specific gear (outside of reminding folks at my agency of policy ). When I taught private citizens in classes, I'd explain advantages and disadvantages of various things, and leave it up to the individuals to look further into such things and decide for themselves.

I used to carry a 6rd revolver, and encountering multiple threats wasn't off the table on any particular day. Gangs were common. That's why I carried speedloaders. When I carried pistols with mag capacities from 6-15rds? (I think the progression for duty weapons was ... 14, 15, 2, 8, 9, 7, 8 & 15rds.) Well, the differences in mag capacities could be taken into account in my training, to some degree, but I couldn't know it it would actually make a critical difference in any particular situation.

I still consider current events and known activities, when possible. Random events and randomly acting criminals are things that can happen. While I might decide a belt gun is in order for some day or evening, and that belt gun might use mags of 6-12rds, I might also decide to carry one of my 5rd snubs ... much like I used to do for attending court, meetings, training, conferences (in public venues), etc.

Personally, I pay more heed to everything I've acquired in the way of training and experiential knowledge, and not so much attention to the specific gear. Gear is gear. Now, the gear-user? That might be the make-or-break factor.

Suit yourselves folks. You're the one who may have to hope to live with the consequences of your choice. Like I used to tell the men and women I helped train over the years ... I might be able to help them while they were at the range, but I probably wouldn't be standing beside them to tell them what to do, and how to do it, or to do it for them outside the range in the real world. Decisions come with consequences. Choose wisely. It's all any of us can really hope to do.

 

[WrongHanded]

I said that for IWB carry, he personally prefers to carry a single stack--but not a subcompact.

He tested and selected a Springfield XDS 9 4.0 for that purpose. Those have a capacity of 8+1.

Partly because I like the grip safety, and partly on the strength of Rob's reliability testing, I bought one. I found OWB carry more comfortable

It is large enough and heavy enough, but they are no longer offered. The 4.0 version was much more shootable than the shorter one.

I am not fond of the trigger pull.

Rob has said that for his own IWB carry, he prefers a full size 10+1 single-stack pistol, with either a grip safety or no separate safety at all. He started working with Avidity Arms who were developing one. But then Glock introduced something along those lines.

I have since procured a Smith and Wesson EZ 9. It has a better trigger than my XDS, it has a grip safety, and it is large enough and heavy enough for me.

When I last attended an I.C. E. PDS course, a service-size semi-auto was required, and a good OWB holster was strongly recommended.

In the class, he used a double-stack Glock, OWB. That was some time ago.

But do you see how these statements of preference get whittled down and altered more and more as they travel from the source? Do you understand how someone may think a thing, but say it differently, only for it to be heard more differently than that?

We see a trend moving to smaller and lighter carry pistols with lower capacity. These guns are harder to shoot and less than idea for defensive purposes. So are we to assume that students make these decisions on their own and against the better advice of their instructors? Or should we assume that through word of mouth the instructors compromise options are misconstrued, but not corrected?

 

[Kleanbore]

We see a trend moving to smaller and lighter carry pistols with lower capacity.

So it appears.

These guns are harder to shoot and less than idea for defensive purposes.

I agree with that.

So are we to assume that students make these decisions on their own and against the better advice of their instructors? Or should we assume that through word of mouth the instructors compromise options are misconstrued, but not corrected?

There are so few persons who avail themselves of defensive pistol training that one would doubt that their decisions could have any material effect on market trends at all.

 

[LeftyRed]

Hahaha! I feel the same and am posting for the same reason; recovering from having surgery on my right shoulder. Can't work, can't get out and do much so here I am! Still, it's interesting to see why people carry what they do. Normally I carry an HK P2000 loaded up 13+1 with a spare mag on my belt. Occasionally in very hot weather I'll carry my Beretta Nano with 8+1 and a spare mag on my belt. The risks don't change when it's hot but being human I will bow somewhat to comfort and convenience; the thinner, lighter Nano can be concealed easily under just a T-shirt.

But right now I can't draw or shoot a sidearm with my right hand. The only option I've found that allows me to be armed is a left-handed belly band for my Ruger LCRx in .38 Special. My operation was about 4 months ago and I'm getting some more function back but I'm not 100% sure I could manipulate the slide on an auto if I had to clear a malfunction. The LCRx only holds five rounds but I figure better five that are pretty reliable than eighteen out of my VP9 that I might not be able to operate. It may be enough or may not, but since I'm temporarily disabled it's my best option. Luckily I've always done some weak hand practice so I'm reasonably competent just using my left. My right arm functions enough to reload the gun, just can't raise it to shoulder level yet.

When I carry my j frames, I normally carry two. One in my front left pocket and one in a KLNull shoulder holster. Figured I’m better off with five for sure and then drop and get the other one quicker then trying to reload.

I’m looking at the LCRX in 327, since I love the 32 H&R so much. Size rounds and very controllable in such a light pistol.

The HK 2000 is very under appreciated series of pistols.

My shoulder is six weeks out, and feels great! Starting more movement and bands. Been practicing drawing, REALLY SLOW and carefully! LOL Hope yours is getting better too.

Lefty

 

[LeftyRed]

That analysis has been discussed at length here.

First, all of the incidents that Claude studies involved successful defenses. Second, when one notes the number of incidents in which the defender were afforded the opportunity to retrieve a firearm from another location, one quickly realizes that those data are not representative of street or parking lot encounters, in which charging attackers necessitate fast shooting and multiple shots. third, the incidents covered are only this in which someone chose to publicize them.

Furhter, the most of the data remain unvalidated media reports

Those averages may be an average of something, but I would not characterize then as the average.

You had mentioned the idea of attackers "standing a fight".

Didn’t know you was such an expert, and even over the likes of Claude. Maybe you should start a study, and prove us nay sayers wrong. If you can find such data.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

The HK 2000 is very under appreciated series of pistols.

My shoulder is six weeks out, and feels great! Starting more movement and bands. Been practicing drawing, REALLY SLOW and carefully! LOL Hope yours is getting better too.

Lefty

Yeah, it's a gem! I have PT in less than an hour, the shoulder is getting better and better. Thanks!

 

[Encoreman]

Sorry I didn't read all the posts, but have you read about the officer in Skokie, Il in 2008 that shot 33 rounds of .45acp and finally put the bad guy down. He had routinely carried 47 rounds, but when he got out of the hospital it all changed, for one all 9mm and he carries 145 rounds plus 90 rounds for the AR-15. The bad guy had held up a bank at gunpoint and it all started when the officer tried to pull him over and the bad guy shoots his 9mm dry, goes back and gets a .380, but it could have gotten worse as there was an SKS loaded on the bad guys front seat. No matter the average, carry all you are comfortable with and train, train and train some more.

 

[Kleanbore]

Didn’t know you was such an expert, and even over he likes of Claude.

My comments were based on quite a bit of analysis and discussion that have taken place among members and staff here. I cannot take credit for that.

If you can find such data.

That's just it. We have already discussed why we have no adequate, conclusive data regarding any aspect of civilian defensive use of force incidents.

 

[LeftyRed]

My comments were based on quite a bit of analysis and discussion that have taken place among members and staff here. I cannot take credit for that.

That's just it. We have already discussed why we have no adequate, conclusive data regarding any aspect of civilian defensive use of force incidents.

True, but hear say and internet stories don’t amount to much.

But if there is no data, then how did Claude write a monthly column that documented almost 500 incidents, and then have almost tenfold in reserve with usable data. Then you have Greg Ellifritz and his study. There is data out there, just not data that supports the mainstream views. So like the liberal media, it won’t be heard since it doesn’t support their views. But if we are to learn, we need to look at actual events and see what happened and focus our training on that. But it’s not that cool, so doubtful it will happen. But hey, not everyone can be right. And if it makes everyone feel good about themselves to carry 150 rounds, go for it. But besides internet photos, I doubt most have it on them when they hit the streets.

Lefty

 

[WrongHanded]

So it appears.

I agree with that.

There are so few persons who avail themselves of defensive pistol training that one would doubt that their decisions could have any material effect on market trends at all.

Hey! Look at that! We agree on something.

Now I can see that a relatively low fraction of those buying CC guns get training. But that does not mean that the advice and preferences of trainers does not influence the market in profound ways.

Consider this: Rob told you that he prefers a single stack 10+1 for IWB carry. You relay that information online. But what that says to many people who read it is that professional defensive firearms expert, Rob Pincus, thinks 10+1 of 9mm is enough for CC. Does that potentially affect what people may choose to buy? Did you write that it's a full size pistol? Well you did this time, but maybe not every time (and if it's the G48 it's not actually a full size according to Glock, but that's besides the point). Even if you did write it, did the reader latch on to it? Did they grasp that it being a slim version (assuming the G48 for this example) of the G19, and what that means for shootability? Or did they maybe just hear "10+1 of 9mm in a smaller package"?

That's just one example, and there's no need to take it personally. But the reality is, it's unlikely that most trainers are going to come out with a list of popular CC guns that are too small. And it's also likely that they may - if asked their opinion on a students newly purchased subcompact - placate the student regarding the choice rather than be blunt about how much of a compromise it really is. Then the student runs of to tell the world that the [whatever gun] is okay by [insert trainer]. And before you know it, there's a micro pistol epidemic. The worst part is, that student knows they don't shoot that gun as well as a larger pistol, but they just got "permission" and that's a pretty good excuse.

But hey, it's not really my problem. I make my own compromises, and I know I'm lazy.

 

[Kleanbore]

But if there is no data,

No adequate, sufficiently inclusive, and verifiable data that are sufficiently complete and are applicable to support those conclusions. My post explained that.

"First, all of the incidents that Claude studies involved successful defenses. Second, when one notes the number of incidents in which the defender were afforded the opportunity to retrieve a firearm from another location, one quickly realizes that those data are not representative of street or parking lot encounters, in which charging attackers necessitate fast shooting and multiple shots. third, the incidents covered are only this in which someone chose to publicize them.

"Further, the most of the data remain unvalidated media reports".
​

But if there is no data, then how did Claude write a monthly column that documented almost 500 incidents,

He did not. He analyzed news reports published in a monthly magazine.

There is data out there, just not data that supports the mainstream views.

One more time:

"People do crave actual data. That's understandable.

"But we won't get much data regarding civilian defensive shootings, for several reasons:

1. Very few civilian defensive shooting incidents occur.
2. Data from police investigative reports are not collected for analysis.
3. Participants in such incidents are responsibly advised by counsel to remain mum--forever, when fatalities occur.
4. Participants in incidents that involve civil litigation, which is almost settled out of court, are bound by the strict terms of the settlements to maintain strict confidentiality forever.
5. Few civilians wear body cams, and if they do the recordings will not prudently be made public

"I really hope this proves helpful."
​

A lot of data are recorded when police shootings occur, but what are made public is another thing.

 

[Charlie Martinez]

Things change quickly. Just a day or two ago I wrote that my 5-shot CC revolver was OK for my needs. Recently I have been contracted to perform illumination surveys on parking areas. This means going to apartment, industrial and commercial building parking lots at night to determine if the lighting meets code. Sooner or later I'll be asked to visit places after dark where 100 spare shots may not be enough.

 

[Kleanbore]

Now I can see that a relatively low fraction of those buying CC guns get training. But that does not mean that the advice and preferences of trainers does not influence the market in profound ways

Dunno.

Frankly, no handgun buyer whom I know has, to my knowledge , been influenced by what any trainer has said. Only a few have ever seen an internet review. Most have gone to a store and looked and listened, and some have rented guns and tried them out. A few have asked my opinion. I have passed on nothing that came from trainers.