Is 6 Shots Really Enough?

[45_auto]

But someone challenged my reasoning. He asked why I would base a decision on what to carry on the likelihood of encountering trouble rather than on what would be needed should trouble occur.

Do you apply the same logic to your selection of the type of automobile you or your family members drive? That choice is FAR more likely to affect the life or death of you or your loved ones than how many bullets that you have in your gun.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809662.html

Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles

Very small 4-door cars ----------- 11.56
Small 4-door cars ----------------- 7.85
Mid-size 4-door cars -------------- 5.26
Large 4-door cars ----------------- 3.30
Compact pickup trucks ------------ 6.82
Large (100-series) pickup trucks --- 4.07
Small 4-door SUVs ---------------- 5.68
Mid-size 4-door SUVs ------------- 6.73
Large 4-door SUVs ---------------- 3.79
Minivans -------------------------- 2.76

 

[Warp]

Do you apply the same logic to your selection of the type of automobile you or your family members drive? That choice is FAR more likely to affect the life or death of you or your loved ones than how many bullets that you have in your gun.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809662.html

Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles

Very small 4-door cars ----------- 11.56
Small 4-door cars ----------------- 7.85
Mid-size 4-door cars -------------- 5.26
Large 4-door cars ----------------- 3.30
Compact pickup trucks ------------ 6.82
Large (100-series) pickup trucks --- 4.07
Small 4-door SUVs ---------------- 5.68
Mid-size 4-door SUVs ------------- 6.73
Large 4-door SUVs ---------------- 3.79
Minivans -------------------------- 2.76

There are, of course, more variables at work than simply vehicle type leading to those stats. You know, things like how you drive, where you drive, when you drive, what safety features the specific vehicles comes with, seat belt usage, etc.

But I think it is prudent to point out that the costs associated with vehicle selection are often far more prohibitive than the costs associated with choosing a different firearm. Not only is a larger capacity (but still reliable, durable, easy to shoot) firearm not necessarily any more expensive than a lower capacity firearm, but even IF it was, the absolute dollar amount is insignificant compared to vehicles.

And for the record, I chose the "large 4-door SUV" with that ^ as a significant reason why.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 45_auto: Do you apply the same logic [(conditional probability)] to your selection of the type of automobile you or your family members drive?

Well, yeah. We have for many years.

But while I do look at NHTSA stats, I do not rely on them; they are influenced by the types of drivers and types of driving inherent in each classification as much as by the active and passive safety characteristics of the deign, which would be more meaningful in decision making.

One example might help here: years ago the Olds 98 was among their "safest", but consider who was buying them--any good engineer would have chosen a SAAB for crashworthiness, but the Olds drivers were not likely to take many chances or drive beyond their limits.

We also apply basic risk management techniques in areas such as fire safety and a lot of other things.

We're off topic, but the risk management techniques are the same, and the multivariate nature of the above example should remind us that round count is but one thing to take into account in choosing a defensive firearm.

Will it work when you need it? Will you have it with you? Can you hit with it? Can you hit with it in rapid succession? And so on.

Capacity, sights, reliability, felt recoil, trigger pull, grip.....

And the snubby in the pocket will surely be more effective than that high-cap .40 in the safe.

 

[tomrkba]

Bill Jordan's solution for violent mob control was to kill five of them. Maybe they were more ruthless back then and only needed six because the perps understood the deal.

I do like my Glocks and I always carry a spare revolver when I carry a revolver as primary.

 

[X-Rap]

A good friend of mine had three perps come into his pawn shop and start shooting. He returned fire with his Beretta. He had eighteen rounds when it started. He received multiple hits, one perp dead, one out of commission and one fled. He was lucky to survive and had two rounds left. He thinks I am crazy for just having a 1911 or revolver with me, but they are what I prefer.

It's one thing to read about something like that on a forum or in the news and quite another to actually be close to the person in the story. You being the good friend and still limiting yourself to 8 shots and under I'd have to agree, you are crazy.

 

[X-Rap]

Bill Jordan's solution for violent mob control was to kill five of them. Maybe they were more ruthless back then and only needed six because the perps understood the deal.

A lot of that talk is just plain hype and as much as I respect the steely eyed old man I can't think of a single time I've ever heard that he killed 5 men in one instance.
We can only wonder what some of the old timers would be carrying today but I bet they would have more open minds than some of their disciples.

 

[David E]

You being the good friend and still limiting yourself to 8 shots and under I'd have to agree, you are crazy.

I suspect it's more of a "9mm vs .45" thing.

 

[marcclarke]

]Additionally, and more to the point, I wasn't talking about you with a rifle in a gunfight against 3 police officers. I was actually thinking about either you with a rifle OR 3 police officers in a gunfight with a criminal. Very few armed criminals are Rifleman with a rifle. And I'm probably putting my money on the three police officers.]

I am not going to be getting into a gunfight with the Police. Just so we are all crystal clear.

 

[marcclarke]

Marcclark, You are speaking as if policemen aren't using slugs at all. We carry both 000 buck and 1 oz. slugs. At my agency we train to make a torso-size hit from prone at 100 yards. Granted, it is unlikely to penetrate a vest, but it will as minimum knock the breath out of him and is likely to cause a broken rib or two. At that range I do prefer my AR, but if the shotgun is in my hands already, I am competent with it.

I've taken whitetail with a Winchester model 12 at 100 yards. It's not that difficult with the correct sights.

Indeed. I do know that cops do carry and use shotgun slugs. Thank you for the reminder.

I also know that nearly every U.S. police department has gone from the 8-round slow to reload 12 gauge shotgun to the 30-round rapid-magazine-change AR-15 platform, driven in part by the magazine capacity issue. I think that the question of how many rounds does it take to prevail, about which in this thread is written pertaining to revolvers, applies also to police officers and their long arms.

We now we return you to our regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Kleanbore]

Just a reminder, folks....we are not about law enforcement weapons and tactics here on THR.

 

[Warp]

Content deleted.

 

[JohnKSa]

But someone challenged my reasoning. He asked why I would base a decision on what to carry on the likelihood of encountering trouble rather than on what would be needed should trouble occur. That was a brilliant application of conditional probability analysis, and it had somehow never occurred to me.

Correct. It's about being prepared for an event that you find it desirable to prepare for based on some reasoning. It's not about trying to assess the probability of the event, itself.

I didn't learn CPR because I think it's likely I'll have to jump-start someone during my lifetime but because it's an event I find it desirable to prepare for. My reasoning is that I don't like the idea of having someone collapse and die in front of me when there's a chance I might be able to do something productive instead of just stand there and wring my hands. So I prepared for the event because I didn't like the alternative of possibly finding myself in that situation and not being prepared.

So, now that I've decided to prepare, should I blow the course off, play video games on my smartphone and/or read a novel while the instructor is going through the material? After all, I know that the chances of needing CPR are slim--why would I waste time and effort learning the material when there's little chance I'll ever need it?

Of course not. That's not consistent with the idea of being prepared. My preparation isn't based on the likelihood of the event, it's based on what I will need to know should the unlikely event take place.

 

[Chilibreath]

Just curious, why no comments pertaining to law enforcement training/tactics?

 

[Kleanbore]

^^^^

"Welcome to The High Road, an online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership."

ST&T goes beyond that, as does the Non-Firearm Weapons forum.

 

[Chilibreath]

Hmmm, interesting response considering some of the posts that are already on the record. I was just wondering because there are probably a lot of LEOs on these boards who would appreciate the opportunity to voice an opinion on training issues and well as tactics; couldn't hurt if they did, but that ain't my call.

 

[Kleanbore]

LEO training issues that are relevant to persons other than sworn officers are certainly of interest here.

It is a judgment call. "I carried an L-Frame that could not be be fired double action" is a gun-related item that would likely be of interest to any revolver shooter. So is "the main concern with Magnum loads was over penetration."

Likewise for discussion about weapon retention.

Or "we practiced with Specials in our K Magnums".

All relevant to people interested in responsible firearms ownership, wouldn't you say?

On the other hand, comments about policies involving shooting torso targets at 100 yards (not intended to be critical of anyone here) have little relevance to lawful defense.

My thoughts, anyway.

 

[David E]

On the other hand, comments about policies involving shooting torso targets at 100 yards (not intended to be critical of anyone here) have little relevance to lawful defense.

Don't know what you mean by "policies," but I submit that hitting torso targets at 100 yds IS relevant to lawful defense.

Why? Because it proves that a given gun, say, an "inaccuate" snubby, IS capable of hitting a target at distance. Therefore, it can easily hit a target much closer and the excuses ("it's only good out to ten feet") are demolished.

One may have only 1/2 a torso at 7/10 yds to shoot at. Knowing what the gun can do drives most people to attain the skill to extract the most out of the gun.

 

[tomrkba]

On the other hand, comments about policies involving shooting torso targets at 100 yards (not intended to be critical of anyone here) have little relevance to lawful defense.

Tell that to Vic Stacy who shot a spree killer at 165 yards. The murderer was shooting at a police officer with a rifle.

http://www.practicaltacticaltraining.com/2012/08/gun-owner-saves-police-officer-with-165-yard-shot/

 

[Warp]

Don't know what you mean by "policies," but I submit that hitting torso targets at 100 yds IS relevant to lawful defense.

Why? Because it proves that a given gun, say, an "inaccuate" snubby, IS capable of hitting a target at distance. Therefore, it can easily hit a target much closer and the excuses ("it's only good out to ten feet") are demolished.

One may have only 1/2 a torso at 7/10 yds to shoot at. Knowing what the gun can do drives most people to attain the skill to extract the most out of the gun.

I'm not totally sure where the 100 yard torso hit came from. Within my deleted content I had a picture of the shot pattern of my cylinder bore shotgun with Federal flight control #1 buck at 25 yards, showing a very tight group, and I said that while I haven't tried it I think that shotgun setup could effectively put pellets on target well beyond 25 yards.

 

[Kleanbore]

100 Yd Practice

I picked a bad example....

 

[David E]

I had a picture of the shot pattern of my cylinder bore shotgun with Federal flight control #1 buck at 25 yards, showing a very tight group, and I said that while I haven't tried it I think that shotgun setup could effectively put pellets on target well beyond 25 yards.

No doubt. My shotgun puts the 00 pellets inside a large dinner plate at 45 yds, so it's not a "20 yards and closer only" as so many think is the maximum range for a shotgun.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Tell that to Vic Stacy who shot a spree killer at 165 yards. The murderer was shooting at a police officer with a rifle.

http://www.practicaltacticaltraining.com/2012/08/gun-owner-saves-police-officer-with-165-yard-shot/

I think if you look a little deeper into this incident, you'll find that the distances were a bit overstated.

I don't have the thread on hand, but there was a thread that offered a layout of the trailer park and the distances involved. Analysis offered that the distance between the shooter to the BG was closer to 65 yards than 100.

Still an impressive shot under pressure

 

[tomrkba]

A lot of that talk is just plain hype and as much as I respect the steely eyed old man I can't think of a single time I've ever heard that he killed 5 men in one instance.
We can only wonder what some of the old timers would be carrying today but I bet they would have more open minds than some of their disciples.

I think we tend to be too literal today. Based upon my reading of the text, I believe the idea Mr. Jordan intended to convey was a complete lack of mercy for someone engaged in such evil behavior. There was no moral relativism and no attempt "to understand" the felon's point of view because there is no need to tolerate evil. It is not that he ever did kill five felons like that, but that he would certainly try with the expectation that other good men would assist as necessary. Compare that with today's common behavior where men merely avert their eyes and shuffle past the crime in progress.

 

[JShirley]

I hate it when people say "handgun to fight their way to a long gun" thing.

As was demonstrated above, for regular private citizens...that just doesn't happen. It just doesn't. Either the problem, or you, get solved with the firearm(s) you started with/had on your person.

Really? I have a handgun I keep near the bed when I'm sleeping. I keep a handgun because it's easy to conceal and resecure. If I hear what sounds like an intrusion, I will motion to any other occupants to call 911, grab my sidearm, and get my rifle. I hope to not shoot anyone in the meantime, but I'd rather have a handgun than no gun- it's just not practical to keep an AR15 next to the bed. (It's not far from the bed, either, but I want a firearm instantly within reach.) Thus: the sidearm is, as it has always been except in the case of military officers, a reactive weapon. If you know you're going to a fight, you bring a long gun. And if I have the time- I'm probably talking 20 seconds, and there's another locked door in-between- I will have one.

NOW, as for statistics: while not individual citizens, the Illinois State Patrol (IIRC- these were well-publicized cases, but it's been over 15 years) had several cases where they dumped magloads of 9x19mm into criminals. I believe in one instance it was over 40 rounds, and in another, over 60. The threats were brought down by .223 or 12 gauge, since the good guys foolishly started their fights with handguns. (There was also another case where a big biker took 13 9x19mm Silvertips center-mass, and then died of a heart attack while attempting to escape. )

Now, maybe in your fairly happy universe, only people in uniform ever face threats like that. Yay for your happy, very mythical, universe.

I don't live there.

John

 

[Fiv3r]

I have never felt undergunned carrying a 5 shot snubbie. I have never felt scared with a single action six shooter. However, I have never packed "just" an LCP when I'm going through an area where my chances for altercation are higher if I could help it.

Preferably, I like to carry at least a .40 with 14 rounds in the magazine.