Is 5 or 6 really enough in today's world.

[.38 Special]

What Im saying about capacity is, once you realize that the second the problem becomes just slightly more complicated, the round counts are likely going to go up. And if youre one that thinks youll only need one round per target and that anyone shot will instantly fall down and quit, I think youre seriously deceiving yourself and not being realistic at all.

"Train for anything", is simply working on as many different things as you can in practice beforehand, so that your conscious you and your subconscious brain are familiar and comfortable with shooting in ways that you may not normally shoot, so you can do it without giving it a thought as you need to. If youre skills are based on aimed, slow fire at specific distances, youre going to be greatly lacking, the second you need to quickly draw and shoot, draw, move, and shoot as you go, shoot without using your sights, shooting quickly, accurately, and repetitively in any way you have to shoot, etc.

None of that is difficult at all either, once youve done it enough to get a feel for it and maintain and continue to improve on things. But of course, if you're convinced you're a great shot based on how you shoot slow fire groups, and youve never done anything beyond that before, its a lot easier just to blow it off and say its a waste of time.

"Scenarios" aren't what youre training for, its what you gain from doing all sorts of things that you haven't done before, and they are just a basic problem that you are attempting to learn and gain skills and insights from, even if they may seem silly, so if and when you do have to just go with the flow, this isnt the first time youre doing it, or at least something similar to it, and you act instead of freezing up.

If thats impractical, I really dont see that theres any point in going on here. This isnt something that you learn once 30 years ago and youre good forever. This is an ever, ongoing thing, with constant refreshing and continued learning, and there is no diploma at the end. Just more work.

I get it, not everyone is that dedicated or interested in things, but if youre carrying a gun, whether you believe it or not, its still your responsibility to be reasonably competent and proficient with it and you really should be.

I've trained hard for decades, in all sorts of ways, with all sorts of guns. I currently undergo the latest sort of training (movie screens and lasers) using very high capacity guns, with magazine changes an integral part of it.

And I still keep revolvers on my CCW permit and carry them with regularity.

So?

 

[.38 Special]

Obviously some dont. And why do people get so butt hurt and want to argue about it when you bring it up?

The issue may be that your posts appear to argue that anyone who trains adequately will automatically agree with your conclusions re. carry guns, and that conversely, anyone who does not agree with your conclusions must be inadequately trained and/or experienced.

 

[Autodidactic]

Random thoughts..

We live in one of the most, if not the most, peaceful modern eras mankind has ever seen.

A 5 or 6 shot revolver has no meaningful advantage over modern semi-autos.

I would take the guy that practice with his J-frame over the guy that thinks his high-cap semi means he doesn't have to.

This is a huge thing. To hear people tell it, we need more capacity due to rising crime. But the stats show we have lower murder rates as one example compared I think to the 60’s and 70’s, or 80’s and early 90’s.

 

[Tallball]

Stay away from unsafe places if at all possible.
Whenever you're out and about, be consciously aware of all of the people and cars around you.
Don't drive a valuable or frequently-stolen vehicle.
Don't wear expensive clothing or jewelry.
Don't get into arguments with strangers.
If you're under the influence in public, you're an easy target.
Control your body language to always show confidence; never look nervous or unsure.
No one should ever think or suspect you have valuable firearms, jewelry, cash, illegal stuff, etc. at your house.
How much do you value your family's lives? Our current HD dog cost $35 at the pound. I put in the effort to be a good dog owner, and he keeps our house much much safer.

I doubtless missed a few. After all of that stuff you get down to which firearms to have around.

Some guy who's having a nice evening out with his gal, had a couple of beers, driving his expensive car, wearing his expensive watch, not paying much attention, maybe in a sketchy area... his 17-shot pistol and two spare mags are doing nothing to keep him out of danger.

Some other guy in the habit of keeping his eyes open, driving a modest car and not wearing jewelry, staying away from sketchy areas, etc. is much safer, even if he only has a puny j-frame with no reloads.

 

[wcwhitey]

Stay away from unsafe places if at all possible.
Whenever you're out and about, be consciously aware of all of the people and cars around you.
Don't drive a valuable or frequently-stolen vehicle.
Don't wear expensive clothing or jewelry.
Don't get into arguments with strangers.
If you're under the influence in public, you're an easy target.
Control your body language to always show confidence; never look nervous or unsure.
No one should ever think or suspect you have valuable firearms, jewelry, cash, illegal stuff, etc. at your house.
How much do you value your family's lives? Our current HD dog cost $35 at the pound. I put in the effort to be a good dog owner, and he keeps our house much much safer.

I doubtless missed a few. After all of that stuff you get down to which firearms to have around.

Some guy who's having a nice evening out with his gal, had a couple of beers, driving his expensive car, wearing his expensive watch, not paying much attention, maybe in a sketchy area... his 17-shot pistol and two spare mags are doing nothing to keep him out of danger.

Some other guy in the habit of keeping his eyes open, driving a modest car and not wearing jewelry, staying away from sketchy areas, etc. is much safer, even if he only has a puny j-frame with no reloads.

You my friend get it! Be safe and stay gray!

 

[Autodidactic]

As we can see here, the deaths by homicide rate were higher in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's, when supposedly 'we didn't need higher capacity due to lower crime rates and fewer assailants.'

Death rate for homicide in the U.S. 1950-2018 | Statista

Now, this isn't to say there isn't a strong argument for more capacity just in case. Obviously, there are situations where it's proven necessary, or contexts (police, military combat, etc.). But, the data doesn't support an oft stated argument that crime is getting worse and therefore we need the capacity in a way we didn't before.

I will say that 2020-2022 there is a spike in some forms of crime due to the soft-on-crime approach, as well as the BLM riots and economic havoc wrought by the Covid policies.

U.S. Murder/Homicide Rate 1990-2023 | MacroTrends

Here we see a spike in 2020 but it's still not as high as the early 90's and before.

 

[Simple Shooter]

As we can see here, the deaths by homicide rate where higher in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's, when supposedly 'we didn't need higher capacity due to lower crime rates and fewer assailants.'

Death rate for homicide in the U.S. 1950-2018 | Statista

Now, this isn't to say there isn't a strong argument for more capacity just in case. Obviously, there are situations where it's proven necessary, or contexts (police, military combat, etc.). But, the data doesn't support an oft stated argument that crime is getting worse and therefore we need the capacity in a way we didn't before.

I will say that 2020-2022 there is a spike in some forms of crime due to the soft-on-crime approach, as well as the BLM riots and economic havoc wrought by the Covid policies.

U.S. Murder/Homicide Rate 1990-2023 | MacroTrends

Here we see a spike in 2020 but it's still not as high as the early 90's and before.

in the 70-90s one would have to buy a newspaper and scroll through the national news section to find even 10% of the crime reports I can find on the Fox News website on my phone right now.

 

[Autodidactic]

in the 70-90s one would have to buy a newspaper and scroll through the national news section to find even 10% of the crime reports I can find on the Fox News website on my phone right now.

This is why data matters. I was a professional data analyst/reporting manager for a while.

What data does is disprove narratives. News coverage on all manners of topics is inaccurate, either underreporting or overreporting issues, falsely representing issues, etc.

Fox News overreports some societal issues such as crime, MSNBC and CNN underreport.

 

[LiveLife]

in the 70-90s one would have to buy a newspaper and scroll through the national news section to find even 10% of the crime reports I can find on the Fox News website on my phone right now.

Facts are, except a recent spike, murder rates have been falling for years.

It's also factual that likely in the 70-90s, most criminals used 5-6 shot revolvers instead of 15 round semi-auto.

 

[Simple Shooter]

What data does is disprove narratives. News coverage on all manners of topics is inaccurate, either underreporting or overreporting issues, falsely representing issues, etc.

Well stated.

Data would indicate that 5-6 rounds is enough to handle most self defense situations. However, there are "experts" out there who will tell us that we need to carry no less than a full size double stack and two extra magazines everywhere we go due to the roving gangs of military trained, heavily armed, armor-clad, heroine junkies.

Unfortunately, much of what we consume these days is based on emotional response, as emotions sell more than factual data.

 

[Autodidactic]

Well stated.

Data would indicate that 5-6 rounds is enough to handle most self defense situations. However, there are "experts" out there who will tell us that we need to carry no less than a full size double stack and two extra magazines everywhere we go due to the roving gangs of military trained, heavily armed, armor-clad, heroine junkies.

Unfortunately, much of what we consume these days is based on emotional response, as emotions sell more than factual data.

Right, and thank you.

To your point, if we are making decisions based on data and probabilities, it's not even clear that one needs to be armed. The vast majority of people don't end up using a carried firearm in their lifetime. Even many police don't, nor soldiers. Of those police or civilians who do, how many have to go beyond alerting a perpetrator that they are armed with a firearm? Of those who are forced to use the gun and fire, what percent shoot more than 5 rounds? It goes on and on where the percentage of armed people who not only have to use a firearm, but fire it and fire beyond 5 rounds is some minuscule percent.

This isn't to say that it's wrong to carry more, BUT, the data doesn't support that it's some kind of high probability that one will encounter such a situation where it's required.

I will say that some lines of work, including police, military, or even working in the drug trade, will make someone more likely by far to encounter violence or serious crime. Also, living in some truly bad areas. So, these are obvious considerations, which is why it makes sense for example for a police officer to have higher capacity firearms.

Now, let's assess the cost-benefit analysis too. Many people (not police) appear to be making some substantial considerations just to carry either higher capacity guns, or larger guns in calibers such as .45 ACP. 'I carry a Glock 17 or 1911.' They have more weight, have to dress around it, it's unwieldy, etc. Again, they are making a series of accommodations on a daily basis for a very low probability situation.

This is why, for a civilian, I think carrying any quality, reliable handgun one is already prepared for the overwhelming majority of situations they will run into. Even a .22, yes. I carry a .38 or .380, yes 5-6 rounds

 

[LiveLife]

there are "experts" out there who will tell us that we need to carry no less than a full size double stack and two extra magazines everywhere we go due to the roving gangs of military trained, heavily armed, armor-clad, heroine junkies

... civilians who do, how many have to go beyond alerting a perpetrator that they are armed with a firearm? Of those, what percent shoot more than 5 rounds?

I disagree.

Is a 5 or 6 shot revolver really enough in today's wacked out criminal world? Or do you really need the double stack autos?

To me, this thread's OP premise and ensuing discussion may come down to "signs of changing times" and I will reply directly to OP highlighted in bold:

• Long ago when criminals mostly used rocks and clubs, defenders also used rocks and clubs
• Some time ago when criminals mostly used axes and swords, defenders also used axes and swords
• Not too long ago when criminals mostly used muzzle loaders, defenders also used muzzle loaders
• Within last century, when criminals mostly used revolvers and lever actions, defenders also used revolvers and lever actions
• Now that criminals mostly use semi-auto pistols and rifles, defenders also use semi-auto pistols and rifles
• In the future when criminals mostly use energy/laser blasters, defenders will likely use energy/laser blasters

So I don't get why criminals get to use 15-30+ round magazines and defenders are limited to 7/10 rounds ...

 

[wcwhitey]

@LiveLife It’s not. Everyone is completely free to carry what they are legally allowed to carry and comfortable with. That’s the main point, round pegs in round holes. The hope is that a person gives it serious consideration and choses what works for them not what someone tells them they should. It’s good to have choices.

I like the concept of a polite armed society. Cultural force multipliers.

 

[Simple Shooter]

To your point, if we are making decisions based on data and probabilities, it's not even clear that one needs to be armed. The vast majority of people don't end up using a carried firearm in their lifetime.

Very true and a data point for just part of the risk equation- threat- which must also take into account vulnerability and consequence.

Threat (likelihood of occurrence) that someone will act against you to the extent you need a firearm is quite low in most cases, as you point out.

Vulnerability (likelihood they will succeed) to the attack is dependent on your preparation, defensive mindset, physical ability, and proficiency with your firearm.

Consequence (loss if they are successful) is quite high unless you are impervious to knives, bullets, blunt objects, etc.

One must consider all three components of risk to make an accurate and reasonable conclusion as to if, when, and what firearm to carry for a specific situation.

 

[Simple Shooter]

So I don't get why criminals get to use 15-30+ round magazines and defenders are limited to 7/10 rounds ...

I have not seen anyone state we should be limited to 7/10 rounds.

However, this also starts with the premise that whoever has more rounds wins. The winner is the one who disables the opponent or otherwise escapes unharmed. Training, preparation, and marksmanship carry more weight than round count.

 

[LiveLife]

However, this also starts with the premise that whoever has more rounds wins. The winner is the one who disables the opponent or otherwise escapes unharmed. Training, preparation, and marksmanship carry more weight than round count.

I agree to a certain degree but as a medic in the Army trained to realities of urban combat, it's better to engage threats from a covered position with enough rounds to neutralize the threat ... Would I recommend anyone armed with 5-6 round revolver to go against 15+ round semi-auto armed threat without cover? ... No.

Would having extra rounds help if something goes wrong like missing vital body organs with initial shots and the threat can continue to shoot back? ... Yes.

Is a 5 or 6 shot revolver really enough in today's wacked out criminal world? Or do you really need the double stack autos?

And let's review the OP's premise that I took as "today's wacked out criminal world" meaning criminals armed with 15+ round semi-autos.

Now, does that change your opinion that 5-6 round revolver is enough against criminals armed with 15+ round semi-auto?

I like the concept of a polite armed society

Me too but that's not the premise OP posed for this thread discussion.

today's wacked out criminal world

 

[GEM]

I have not seen anyone state we should be limited to 7/10 rounds.

Perhaps, you forget the various state magazines bans. In NYS, Gov. Cuomo explicitly wanted to limit to 7 rounds. The rationale being:

Data would indicate that 5-6 rounds is enough to handle most self defense situations. However, there are "experts" out there who will tell us that we need to carry no less than a full size double stack and two extra magazines everywhere we go due to the roving gangs of military trained, heavily armed, armor-clad, heroine junkies.

The claim that no more rounds are needed typically is part of the core legislative and court decisions for mag bans and supporting them. The higher capacity mags and guns are attractive nuances for maniacs, criminals and terrorists. The advertising for such emphasized the lethal aspect of such and contributes to the wave of lawsuits against gun companies.

BTW, if you have trained with legitimate 'experts', that's not what they say. That's as much BS rhetoric from you as you claim to have heard.

 

[unclenunzie]

I kind of think the OP premise is somewhat faulty - because - today's world is not one place, one time, one risk factor, one way to prepare. At home in my small town the likelihood of an attack of any sort is vanishingly small, yet I still keep a weapon handy, just not on my person. I'm not willing to carry when I am in my jammies, as it were. I've made a considered choice to be comfortable at home. But I'm always armed when I go out, and I'll match my carry options to where I am going above a minimum floor of preparedness. As mentioned prior, I like a P365XL with a spare mag as a baseline, and add a J/LCR as an option.

So I guess I fall into the camp of 5-6 is probably enough for many or even most 1-2 criminal situations, but I'd rather have 10/12+1 in a small, shootable, easy to carry system. In today's "Worlds".

 

[Simple Shooter]

Now, does that change your opinion that 5-6 round revolver is enough against criminals armed with 15+ round semi-auto?

I certainly respect your opinion and thought process. And I thank you for your service to our country.

I can deduct from statistics that 5-6 rounds is enough for the overwhelming number of self defense situations. Someone who is well trained with a 5 shot J frame is in a better position that someone with a 15+1 who cannot hit the broad side of a barn or isn't trained to run for cover, which as you point out, is critical.

There is a big difference between urban combat and the overwhelming number of self defense shootings. Unlike military combatants, very few criminals will continue their attack after you fire the first round.

Do I think everyone should only carry 5-6 rounds? No. Do I think we should all carry a full size auto and two mags? No. Everyone has to make a decision based on their own circumstances and abilities. Training and marksmanship need to be considered just as much, if not more, than how many rounds you have on your person. A civilian's sole mission with a firearm is to force a break in contact, be it with 1 round or 20.

I usually carry a 15+1 as I am a large man who is used to carrying a full size auto pistol. In situations where I see the risk as low and manner of dress makes a large firearm impractical, I am content with my 8+1.

 

[Simple Shooter]

BTW, if you have trained with legitimate 'experts', that's not what they say. That's as much BS rhetoric from you as you claim to have heard.

You are correct. the legitimate experts do not say this. If you don't understand why I had expert in quotations, I can try to explain it in simpler terms. I can get on Youtube or open one of several gun magazines and find the line of thinking I brought up. Unfortunately, that is where many new gun owners go for information.

When I said no one stated we should be limited to 7/10 rounds I was referring this thread, not all human action throughout history. I will try to be more precise in the future.

 

[GEM]

Since I base my decision on legitimate experts who hold the following views, I don't care about unvetted 'experts' on the Internet. From years of experience with the former, I stand by my conclusions:

1. If you consider the continuum of incident intensity, you don't just consider the average. You consider the extremes that are within the realm of possibility. As I said, that's a three opponent gun assuming hopefully good markspersonship (LOL).
2. That leads to a conclusion if you go for belt carry, a semi with 10 or more rounds and an extra mag is easy to carry and use. A similar sized revolver (say a SW 19 gun) with speed loaders is a nice gun but offers no advantage.
3. The pocket guns such as the J frames are used for convenience, and NPEs. The legit experts state this and acknowledge the limitation of the gun type in the more intensive scenarios.
4. The rhetoric about crazed gangs, promotion of zombie scenarios, etc. by Internet wannabees and stridently stating those who carry a reasonable set - my semi and mag are somehow extremist, paranoids - contributes to important antigun claims for legislation and court decision.

Is that simple enough for you in simpler terms?

 

[Simple Shooter]

Since I base my decision on legitimate experts who hold the following views, I don't care about unvetted 'experts' on the Internet. From years of experience with the former, I stand by my conclusions:

1. If you consider the continuum of incident intensity, you don't just consider the average. You consider the extremes that are within the realm of possibility. As I said, that's a three opponent gun assuming hopefully good markspersonship (LOL).
2. That leads to a conclusion if you go for belt carry, a semi with 10 or more rounds and an extra mag is easy to carry and use. A similar sized revolver (say a SW 19 gun) with speed loaders is a nice gun but offers no advantage.
3. The pocket guns such as the J frames are used for convenience, and NPEs. The legit experts state this and acknowledge the limitation of the gun type in the more intensive scenarios.
4. The rhetoric about crazed gangs, promotion of zombie scenarios, etc. by Internet wannabees and stridently stating those who carry a reasonable set - my semi and mag are somehow extremist, paranoids - contributes to important antigun claims for legislation and court decision.

Is that simple enough for you in simpler terms?

I would say we agree on as many things as those we don’t.

 

[GEM]

That's good.

 

[wcwhitey]

@GEM This is a legit question, not a criticism or challenge. Exactly what experts are we talking about? There are shooting instructors who have never been in a gunfight or not even seen a gunshot wound in real life but can teach good shooting form. There are some well studied folks that use data to formulate opinions which can be useful but derive their information from a written word. Then there are those been there done that types who can from personal experience teach both form and mindset. Those types are far a few these days. The days of Jim Cirillo who when spoke was worth listening to are gone. We don’t have gunfighters anymore. We do have quite a few combat veterans. I am sure they can transfer some of that experience to walking the streets of Cleveland but that is a stretch. At best we have some gun guys that may have survived a gunfight (which in and of itself is a big deal) but not exactly a frequent flier. If we are talking LE personnel not too many can keep a job if they get in a few shooting situations, seen as a liability. There is a ton of knowledge out there but it’s in pieces. Take from whatever source you get it but very few can point to a personal shooting. So we are all left with sourcing out our knowledge put together with our personal experience to make decisions. Bottom line is anyone’s combination of the above is just as valid as “experts”. Vetted or not!

 

[GEM]

Perhaps attending events like Tom Givens arranges would introduce you to the world of legitimate experts.