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

[Styx]

All of the data, satistics, news reports, and epidemic of the millions of gun owners who EDC small to compact revolvers, 1911s, single stack 40s&w and 45acp, and mouse/pocket guns over the last dozens of decades up until today who ran out of ammo and were found dead next to their empty 5 to 6 shooter leads me to believe all the internet "what ifs" and fearfongering are completely valid, credible, and well thought out.. How can anyone argue otherwise!

Look at the hundreds of examples of civilians being killed because they ran out of ammo while being attacked my drug cartels, gangs, drug dealers, a wolf pack of thugs, terrorist armed with explosive vest and full auto AK47s, and scariest of all, BLM! Clearly the data shows 5 to 6 shots isn't enough.. At least not in the vivid imaginations of those on the internet. Anyone not carrying, at the very least, the magic arbitrary number of 10 rounds in their EDC CLEARLY has a deaf wish.


While it's true that violent crime is still relatively at an all time low, that doesn't really matter. What matters is news reporting and internet jargon about violent crime is at an all time high! The record number of obsessive compulsive reporting and daily fixation on crime is clear indisputable evidence that 5 to 6 rounds isn't enough because of the historic 24/7 365 rapid rate of crime (reporting). Y'all safe out there! I heard on the internet that the end of the world is coming and it's a free for all in the once safe streets of America.

 

[Obturation]

I'm ok with 5 or 6. I do carry more typically but my ideal carry gun is 9+1. Most folks would do well to learn tactics and how to shoot before being so worried that they don't have 20 rounds between reloads. Everyone's mileage will vary.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Not too long ago the mantra was “Just carry, anything you are proficient with will do”

These days it is something more like, “you better carry this exact thing or you will die!!!”

People can carry what they want for whatever reasons they want. It’s not my business.

 

[Thomasss]

1) I used to carry a full size XDM 9mm and it holds 19 plus 1. Does it make me look fat? I am self-conscious about whether it shows or not. I do carry a j-frame more often w/2 speed loaders. 2) I don't believe I will ever get into a fire fight. In my CC course, the sheriff instructor said the first 3 are the ones that count. 3) Police are not required to qualify with their service weapon. 4) Lately, the recommended sequence is 2 in center of mass and one in the head. 5) I've also heard instead of the head, put one below the belt buckle. It's easier to hit, doesn't have much protection and will stop anyone quickly. 6) Just got done reading that a wad cutter can have a great effect as a defensive round even at 750fps. Don't use a LHB or reverse a LHB. I was told a lot of police used solid WC years ago and it worked very well in close quarters.

 

[Kleanbore]

It's impossible to say...do you feel undergunned or unprepared with 5 rounds?

How would that matter?

 

[Styx]

Not too long ago the mantra was “Just carry, anything you are proficient with will do”

These days it is something more like, “you better carry this exact thing or you will die!!!”

People can carry what they want for whatever reasons they want. It’s not my business.

I remember that use to be the common consensus on firearm forums at least up until about a decade or so ago. I recall the majority of gun owners on major forums saying "the gun you have on you is better than the one you leave at home." Everyone was more supportive of what others carried just as long as they carried something and exercised their 2A rights. This was before the boom of single stack 9mms and conceal carry!

The only difference between back then and now is that everyone has cellphones now. They are glued to the negativity and over reporting of social media and "if it bleeds it leads" for profit news organizations. It's making some people overly paranoid IMHO about everything and not just crime.

Heck, proof of this phenomenon is when I debate with anti-gunners on other forums (city-data.com), and in the comment sections of YouTube, Washington Post, New York Times, and Huffington Post, etc. All of the anti-gunners honestly believe that "assault weapons" are responsible for thousands of shootings and deaths annually. When I tell them that more people are killed with hands and feet or even with knives than with "assault weapons," I get called a liar and accused of pushing "misinformation." The reason why it seems to them that "gun volience" with AR15 variants are so prevalent is the same phenomenon and reason why many gun owners think crime is out of control and only 5 shots will get you killed. It's because they are indoctrinated into these beliefs by the over representation and reporting by bias news outlets and politicians who all have agendas.

 

[westernrover]

Things obviously get tremendously easier if attackers run when they see a gun or when they hear a shot. If that's the scenario you want to prepare for you might not even need the gun loaded at all--or maybe have it loaded only with blanks. If, on the other hand, you need a real gun with real bullets to deal with a scenario, then you will need to make hits and the calculation provides some insight into how hard it is to get two hits on an attacker (or two) with a given number of rounds and realistic gunfight hit rates.

Preparation for less demanding scenarios is certainly easier. If we are to prepare for worse, by how much? Your calculations included two attackers, but would it be prudent to stop at one or two? If two or more attackers are engaged and they do not immediately break contact upon armed resistance and being shot at, the defender will need to not only shoot and hit multiple attackers, but they will need to do it before any of the attackers can hit them.

Consider shooting at several plates on a rack. If you were to shoot the plate on the right, even if you were knock it down with the first shot, it will take some time to move to the next plate. If it were to take two or more hits to knock it down and you needed additional shots to hit it that many times, it would take some time indeed. If the other several plates were not fleeing at the first plate being shot at but were all firing at you for as long as it took for you to engage them, you would be taking quite a bit of fire. We could suppose that your opponents might have a similar rate of fire as yourself, but multipied by their number. In the case of three attackers, by the time you got to your 6th shot, you would have taken as many as 18. By the time you got to 12, your opponents would have had 36 shots to disable you. How do you prepare for that?

 

[Zendude]

One difference in today’s world is that there are many compact and micro size guns that have a relatively high capacity (10+ rounds). So, if you are buying a new gun for concealed carry, there’s really no practical reason to purchase a low capacity gun.
I haven’t bought a new gun in a while, so I’m still a low capacity carrier. Maybe that will be new identification term. I can see the marketing folks now…”Are you a low capacity carrier?” (sad face guy nods) “Well right now you can get $50 off a Shield Plus and boost your confidence!” (guy with grin and hot girl smiling at him)

 

[.38 Special]

Say you are driving "off road" in your 4x4 ... perhaps even just a drive through dirt trail for a weekend camping trip.

Is 5 or 6 gallons of fuel enough? Perhaps, if the drive is short enough.

Or would you prefer to have a full tank of 14-18 gallons?

Well, if I'm just driving to the market, five or six gallons is overkill. And if I'm overlanding for a week, a full tank isn't nearly enough.

None of that really needs to be said - but what we have on these threads essentially amounts to a few guys saying "I get along with six gallons okay" and a few other guys saying "Six gallons ensures you'll get stuck in the Sahara and die!" and everyone else saying "Your Jeep, your business."

 

[JohnKSa]

Your calculations included two attackers, but would it be prudent to stop at one or two?

The probabilities show it's hard enough with just one or two and typical carry gun capacities. It doesn't get better if you add more attackers.

If two or more attackers are engaged and they do not immediately break contact upon armed resistance and being shot at, the defender will need to not only shoot and hit multiple attackers, but they will need to do it before any of the attackers can hit them.

Correct. The calculation assumes that the defender gets the chance to use all the ammunition available. Obviously that's not always the case.

You can think of the probabilities as sort of a best case scenario in terms of a determined attacker scenario. The defender gets the chance to shoot all his shots without getting killed, he doesn't waste any shots shooting a person who has been neutralized (the assumption is two hits per attacker) and nothing during the attack degrades his ability to make hits at a 30% rate.

 

[WrongHanded]

Simply put, you won't know what you're actually up against until it happens.

So you can either say, "Well, this is what happens most of the time..." Or you can say, "This is the worst I've heard of happening on more than several occasions, so I will plan for that."

Everyone finds a balance. But when you come onto a forum to ask a bunch of people you don't really know (who's lives and lifestyles you don't know or understand), what is or is not enough, you're just not thinking about the problem from the right perspective. And that perspective is your perspective. Where you live, how you train, the places you go, the risks you do or don't take, etc.

 

[GEM]

How would this analysis fit into recommending someone wear a seat belt when they drive? Do they drive in the ghetto? What's the odds of being in an accident? Do they drive fast?

 

[WrongHanded]

How would this analysis fit into recommending someone wear a seat belt when they drive? Do they drive in the ghetto? What's the odds of being in an accident? Do they drive fast?

So what would the equivalent of driving be in this situation? Stepping out of the front door? Driving isn't an appropriate parallel, as we all know that all moving vehicles are inherently dangerous at all times. That is not true for people.

 

[westernrover]

The probabilities show it's hard enough with just one or two and typical carry gun capacities. It doesn't get better if you add more attackers.Correct. The calculation assumes that the defender gets the chance to use all the ammunition available. Obviously that's not always the case.

You can think of the probabilities as sort of a best case scenario in terms of a determined attacker scenario. The defender gets the chance to shoot all his shots without getting killed, he doesn't waste any shots shooting a person who has been neutralized (the assumption is two hits per attacker) and nothing during the attack degrades his ability to make hits at a 30% rate.

... and no malfunctions occur that would consume additional cartridges or render the gun disabled. Cartridges can be defective and clearing non-disabling malfunctions often results in live ammo being ejected unused. A magazine base plate can catch on something and be torn off, dumping the entire contents. Cut cases in the chamber, squibs in the barrel, and broken or detached parts can result in guns being disabled.

 

[SDGlock23]

I think it depends, in low risk areas where there isn't much crime then it's probably enough simply because you'll likely not have to use it. In a higher crime area, if you have to go there, I'd want more rounds. But six rounds in a something like a G43 isn't the same as six rounds in a 3" .357 Mag, revolver reload times are much longer and more prone to be problematic than a semi auto even with the most ideal setup, which would be moonclips. Sometimes I pack my SP101 but honestly it's a brick and while I do feel confident in it, I don't see it as anywhere near ideal in todays world...no revolver is.

 

[Styx]

Simply put, you won't know what you're actually up against until it happens.

So you can either say, "Well, this is what happens most of the time..." Or you can say, "This is the worst I've heard of happening on more than several occasions, so I will plan for that."

Everyone finds a balance. But when you come onto a forum to ask a bunch of people you don't really know (who's lives and lifestyles you don't know or understand), what is or is not enough, you're just not thinking about the problem from the right perspective. And that perspective is your perspective. Where you live, how you train, the places you go, the risks you do or don't take, etc.

If we are going to go by - "this is the worst I've heard of happening on more than several occasions, so I will plan for that" - then 5 and 6 rounds should be enough. I have never heard of even one case over the past several decades where a civilian was shot and/or killed as an result of running out of ammo. Can you supply or cite cases where the aforementioned happened "on more than several occasions?"

I am not against people wanting to have more capacity. I do not support magazine bans. I do sometimes carry 10+1 up to 15+1 handguns with a reload. I don't have an argument against those who rather have it and not need it vs needing it and not having it. With all of that said, I am also a realist and realistic... Bases on several decades of facts, satistics, and what we do know, there's absolutely nothing that supports there being a reality that 5 or 6 shots has ever not been enough which resulted in injury or death of a legal civilian gun owners. Yes, anything is possible, but I do not believe it's probable to any statistically significant degree.

What does seem to matter much more than capacity is training and how well you can shoot. IMHO, people should carry a reliable gun that has ergonomics that fits their hands well, they have no problems concealing and carrying, and that they are most proficient and confident with whether it be a 5 shot revolver or a 15+1 semiauto...

 

[WrongHanded]

If we are going to go by - "this is the worst I've heard of happening on more than several occasions, so I will plan for that" - then 5 and 6 rounds should be enough. I have never heard of even one case over the past several decades where a civil was shot and/or killed as an result of running out of ammo. Can you supply or cite cases where the aforementioned happened "on more than several occasions?"

Which is kind of like saying you've never heard of a person who was wearing trail running shoes being mauled to death by a bear. The kind of shoes don't matter to the media coverage, because they didn't make a difference to the outcome.

But I bet you've heard of plenty of times that 5 or 6 rounds wasn't enough to stop a threat, or make that threat flee. You've probably even seen video of such events. But if you haven't, that doesn't mean the videos don't exist, or that the events didn't happen. Those of us who've seen them, know that they do.

 

[Styx]

Which is kind of like saying you've never heard of a person who was wearing trail running shoes being mauled to death by a bear. The kind of shoes don't matter to the media coverage, because they didn't make a difference to the outcome.

But I bet you've heard of plenty of times that 5 or 6 rounds wasn't enough to stop a threat, or make that threat flee. You've probably even seen video of such events. But if you haven't, that doesn't mean the videos don't exist, or that the events didn't happen. Those of us who've seen them, know that they do.

Respectfully, that makes zero sense. That's not an apples to apples comparison. Comparing what shoes someone was wearing during a bear attack which is very irrelevant information to whether a person who defended themselves with their carry gun ran out of ammo and was killed which is extremely relevant information. You're having to make extreme stretches to support the fact that there is no data to support your argument.

We have heard every type of cases and L.E. and/or the people people involved released details about a plethora of shootings over the past several decades. We have seemingly hundreds of thousands of shootings caught on video as well. We have police reports and court documents... Still not even one time or one anecdotal that you can point to to support your assertion. There is so many videos where 5 to 6 shots didn't put someone down correct? Well then why haven't there ever been any videos or reports of a civiliwn who ran out of ammo with 5 or 6 shots that weren't enough which resulted in their death?

If it doesn't exist, there's no data to support a claim or an argument, and rather the data shows the opposite is true, then all you have left is conjure.

 

[aaaaa]

From Tom Givens - "The 1911 is a one or two bad guy gun in a three or four bad guy world."

Unless you are Sergeant Alvin York who took out 6 bayonet charging Germans with his 1911 with a single magazine of ammo:

At this point, a German officer led five men on a bayonet charge towards York’s position. Maybe they had correctly estimated that York was low on or even out of ammo. What they did not predict was that the stubborn American had an M1911 .45 caliber pistol. York dropped down and shot the onrushing Germans the way he would shoot ducks back home — targeting the last man in line first, and then shooting each man from the back of the line to the front. The German officer died last, with his entire squad dead behind him.

And that is just a small part of this amazing story.

 

[WrongHanded]

Respectfully, that makes zero sense. That's not an apples to apples comparison. Comparing what shoes someone was wearing during a bear attack which is very irrelevant information to whether a person who defended themselves with their carry gun ran out of ammo and was killed which is extremely relevant information. You're having to make extreme stretches to support the fact that there is no data to support your argument.

We have heard every type of cases and L.E. and/or the people people involved released details about a plethora of shootings over the past several decades. We have seemingly hundreds of thousands of shootings caught on video as well. We have police reports and court documents... Still not even one time or one anecdotal that you can point to to support your assertion. There is so many videos where 5 to 6 shots didn't put someone down correct? Well then why haven't there ever been any videos or reports of a civiliwn who ran out of ammo with 5 or 6 shots that weren't enough which resulted in their death?

If it doesn't exist, there's no data to support a claim or an argument, and rather the data shows the opposite is true, then all you have left is conjure.

Oh man, my whole point is that you cannot assume that information about someone running out of ammo in a defensive situation in which they were killed, will get released by the police. Nor can you assume it will be well reported if that did happen. So not being able to produce such a report, is not proof that it doesn't happen. It's not even a good assumption.

But okay, show me the report where a person was shot or died trying to defend themselves with a firearm, and had only three rounds left in their gun. Surely it has happened, but finding a media report that includes that information is probably much harder to find than you think.

The particulars of the firearms are rarely reported in such cases. It's only mass shooting were we get so much detail about the weapons used and number of rounds fired, from what capacity of magazines. And even then we still rarely hear about exactly how many rounds were still in the gun.

Do you truly not understand why the lack of coverage of these details is relevant to the merit (or rather lack of merit) in your argument?

 

[trackskippy]

If we are going to go by - "this is the worst I've heard of happening on more than several occasions, so I will plan for that" - then 5 and 6 rounds should be enough. I have never heard of even one case over the past several decades where a civilian was shot and/or killed as an result of running out of ammo. Can you supply or cite cases where the aforementioned happened "on more than several occasions?"

Watch "The First 48". They just had one on last night with exactly that. And it's not the first I've seen on there.

In each case I've seen too, the guns were revolvers.

 

[Ardent]

Couple thoughts from a Canadian, who has carried for much different reasons.

I carried professionally for a long time as a bush pilot & outfitter, working a 1.3 million acre territory an hour air time south of the Alaska border. Our concern in Canada is never violent crime, that’s rather a foreign consideration here. Sure, there’s the odd case, but my gun poses a higher threat to myself through an accidental discharge than the risk of potential assailants by many times.

Our concern rather is wildlife that puts you in the food chain, and that concern, we have aplenty. This said it’s not their fault, we’re in their house, so I’ve never shot one with my sidearm in defence. It’s also the only reason for permitted carry here in the current authorizations. There are more grizzlies in just my home province than all the lower 48 by a factor of a dozen or more, so the density is very high.

We’d consider Montana or Wyoming densities threatened with extinction frankly, just my territory had around Wyoming’s entire population for numbers, with a single river having an official count of 80 resident Grizz. And they definitely missed some. So while it’s their house, the risk for those working in the house is real. My boss for instance at one of the flying jobs in another area was mauled along with his client.

I carried a Glock long slide 10mm, and no spare mag handy. I needed less weight and crap on my belt, and frankly wouldn’t have time for a reload in the heat of it. I think in the reasons for carry entertained in the continental US, you’d find very few multiple mags or cylinders are called for. And in those they have been, that volume of fire may well have been a strategy choice but not the only strategy.

In summary, I carried with one mag in my Glock, a 10 rounder due to our regs. If I carried a revolver for work, it would be a Smith and 5 or 6 would be plenty. Likewise if I lived in a place in the world where I felt threatened I’d be content with a single loading, it’s a last resort and path away from the issue, my job ain’t law enforcement.

This said my only relevant or comparable experience, I carried while on a spell in Africa, a smith .38, with just one cylinder. Way I saw it, it was a tool to leave a bad situation and likely wouldn’t even have to be fired. Hopefully not, even. Carrying multiple mags or speed loaders goes against the mindset I have for handguns as an exit strategy or deterrent.

Though I’ve never lived in lower 48, I’ve travelled there a heck of lot from Florida / Texas etc to Wyoming / Alaska etc for work and play, and have honestly never felt threatened or the need to be able to carry. But I respect and support having the freedom to have the option.

Hopefully an outsider’s perspective isn’t unwelcome.

 

[Styx]

Watch "The First 48". They just had one on last night with exactly that. And it's not the first I've seen on there.

In each case I've seen too, the guns were revolvers.

I've seen just about every episode of The First 48, and I've never seen one case. I would remember if I did. What were the names of the victim or the title of the episode?

 

[Styx]

Oh man, my whole point is that you cannot assume that information about someone running out of ammo in a defensive situation in which they were killed, will get released by the police. Nor can you assume it will be well reported if that did happen. So not being able to produce such a report, is not proof that it doesn't happen. It's not even a good assumption.

But okay, show me the report where a person was shot or died trying to defend themselves with a firearm, and had only three rounds left in their gun. Surely it has happened, but finding a media report that includes that information is probably much harder to find than you think.

The particulars of the firearms are rarely reported in such cases. It's only mass shooting were we get so much detail about the weapons used and number of rounds fired, from what capacity of magazines. And even then we still rarely hear about exactly how many rounds were still in the gun.

Do you truly not understand why the lack of coverage of these details is relevant to the merit (or rather lack of merit) in your argument?

Why would everything and all other types of details be released in cases, in court documents, and/or seen on video except the one thing that supports your argument? People have been carrying revolvers, 1911s, mouse guns, etc for decades. That's hundreds of millions of people, has to be tens of thousands of civilian shootings, and millions of people to this day who carry revolvers, to 6 rounds in a G43, to only 7 rounds in the traditional single stacks, and I am just not buying your convent argument that not once has even one case been mentioned. Not one case caught on CCTV, Ring camera, security cameras, cellphones, etc, but we have just about every other scenario that has been documented at least once. Lots of retired L.E. on gun forums to and even some lawyers. I haven't seen any of them ever cite a case either. Yet there are a plethora of examples when that can be cited in just about every other detail of self defense shootings over the last several decades. It must not be happening in any statistically significantly numbers if at all.

Your argument is that just because you can't prove your argument and have zero data, satistics, or supporting facts to prove your assertions doesn't mean assertions aren't true?

 

[westernrover]

I welcome the perspective from our neighbors in the north. We should consider our neighbors in the south also. Here's what the bears look like there: