Is 6 Shots Really Enough?

[SharpsDressedMan]

I thought the qualifier for the question was is six shot enough FOR YOU (or me). It's more of an opinion than written in stone somewhere.

 

[Warp]

If 6 isn't enough, what about 7? 8? 10? 15? 30? 100?

If we cannot know with anything approaching certainty what waits for us around the corner, then maybe 200 isn't enough.

Absolutely correct.

You'll have to do your best to weight the odds and the stakes vs the feasibility of carrying X number of rounds and decide for yourself what you think makes sense for you.

If you'd like to do that kind of analysis and present to us your result + how you got there, it might be beneficial.

 

[JShirley]

For CCW, I think there's a huge difference among round counts at the lower end of the scale. This is easy to express mathematically: 2 rounds is 100% more than 1. 3 rounds is 50% more than 2. Returns per round diminish as you increase, so there's a 20% increase to 6 from 5. There a 33% gain carrying an 8 shot weapon instead of a 6 shot. I think this stops being a useful model somewhere around 10 rounds.

I believe there a much larger practical difference between that single round increase from 5 to 6 than there is between 8 and 10 rounds, even though mathematically from 8 to 10 is a higher percentage. And I believe, for the CCW holder, the difference between 8 and 10 is a much more important increase than going from 10 to 15 would be, despite the math.

John

 

[TestPilot]

The answer is really simple: No one knows.

Some fights end up with just one shot. Some fights can last a lot more than 6 rounds. There are plenty of documented cases where more than 6 were fired.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I remember a time when I felt pretty good with my 5 shot S&W M-36/60...until the first, in our town, takeover robbery with 4 BGs. Somehow one shot per and one shot in case of a miss just seemed like it was cutting it too thin...at least with 6 shots, you doubled your safety margin.

There was a study years ago...no I don't have a cite; it was before the internet...that most multi-person robberies consisted of 3 BGs entering the business. It was based on 4 people in a getaway vehicle. The driver staying behind the wheel and no one want to sit in the middle, limits a vehicle to 3

 

[barnbwt]

"For CCW, I think there's a huge difference among round counts at the lower end of the scale. This is easy to express mathematically: 2 rounds is 100% more than 1. 3 rounds is 50% more than 2. Returns per round diminish as you increase, so there's a 20% increase to 6 from 5. There a 33% gain carrying an 8 shot weapon instead of a 6 shot. I think this stops being a useful model somewhere around 10 rounds."

The result of numerous return variables diminishing simultaneously
-Likelihood of needing that next round past X (fight's over)
-Likelihood of being able to use that next round past X (time/injury)
-Likelihood of the effect of that extra 'last' round making a difference*

*By the same logic as above, you're just about as likely to be accosted by 10 guys as 20--in which case going from 10 to 11 bullets won't buy you much . Also worth remembering...not every shoot out requires Death Wish style annihilation of each and every actor since most people typically try to leave when bullets start flying

TCB

 

[JShirley]

Uh. TCB, since you quoted me, I would have hoped you read my post, but from your closing, either you didn't read it all, or you didn't understand it.

Again, the difference for a CCW holder between 5 rounds and 6 rounds is more likely to be important than the difference between 8 and 10, even though the % increase is higher in the latter. I don't know how to be clearer than that.

John

 

[barnbwt]

Yeah, which is why I was expounding upon the factors going into the statement you made. Some folks may not believe that 5-6 is more significant than 6-7, since "you'd always wish you had that next round" as the saying goes. I am stating that it is likely that the benefit gained from more than a handful of rounds drops even faster than the simple fractional change in capacity would indicate. There's a reason 6 shots were chosen way back when. The best size for what a fighting pistol is supposed to do; fire and fall back. Much smaller, there's too little payload; much bigger, you are no longer as mobile

At some point, if we need enough rounds of pistol, we should really have a carbine (or some backup ) if we want to approach this logically. Because of the factors I mentioned earlier, capacity alone cannot make up for other tactical disadvantages inherent to pistols. It isn't the limiting factor. Hasn't been for 200 years. But it's easy to point to a higher number and say "better," and from a military/LEO standpoint, higher capacity means more sorties between reloads. From a SD perspective, how many sorties do we expect? My unfounded decision is that it is only one.

TCB

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by barnbwt: Some folks may not believe that 5-6 is more significant than 6-7, since "you'd always wish you had that next round" as the saying goes. I am stating that it is likely that the benefit gained from more than a handful of rounds drops even faster than the simple fractional change in capacity would indicate.

All covered quite well in Post #16.

There's a reason 6 shots were chosen way back when. The best size for what a fighting pistol is supposed to do; fire and fall back.

Actually, five shots were "chosen way back when" when Colt introduced the Paterson recover. While the .36 cal. Paterson revolutionized combat on horseback, experience indicated that more rounds were desirable.

The new Walker and Dragoon revolvers held six .44 caliber loads, which were better suited for disabling a horse, and at more than four pounds, that was a practical maximum.

However, in most cases the users decided that six shots were not really enough. They invariably carried at least two revolvers.

Six remained the standard, except for the seven shot Nagant, but when semi autos came into being, the larger ones held more than six.

 

[PabloJ]

My daily carry is a S&W Model 19 blued with a 4" barrel, loaded with 125 grain loads, with a Glock 26 as backup.


I used to never second guess that 6 shots was enough until I started reading other opinions on the internet

Now I'm not so sure. I love my revolver and have shot so many thousands of rounds through it that it feels like an extension of my hand, something that I've never felt with higher capacity semi autos. I am confident that I can make meaningful hits with my 19 in a self defense situation. But what about if there are multiple attackers? What if I miss? What if, what if, what if?That's why I started carrying a G26 as backup, as much as I dislike the plastic little thing. But what if I don't have enough time to draw my backup? The uncertainty is maddening.

Am I just letting this (and the internet) get to my head? Should I not be concerned with my 6 shots?

You would make your life simpler by replacing two guns with Glock 29. You eliminate need for .357 cartridge and need for capacity of your Glock as backup. Revolvers are good for Hunting, target shooting and for those who can't or don't want increased complexity associated with using or caring for semi-automatic. The ease of use goes out the door if you ever have to reload your weapon. It's not about whether 5, 6 or even eight is enough (we are not talking .22lr revolvers here) but to make ones life simpler with fewer things to worry about. Lets face it most people out there or on this board will probably never have to fire weapon in defense let alone in defense against multiple attackers.

 

[TestPilot]

First of all, let me be clear that I am not trying to convince people that 5~6 shots are not enough.

I am arguing against claims that try to portray more rounds is not better.

...
The result of numerous return variables diminishing simultaneously
-Likelihood of needing that next round past X (fight's over)
….

More rounds could not hurt then.

...
-Likelihood of being able to use that next round past X (time/injury)
-Likelihood of the effect of that extra 'last' round making a difference*
…

When I am unable to fire, having more rounds does not make the situation worse. Not having a next round to fire when I am able to does.

I'd rather worry about the effect of “that extra 'last round'” after I fired it than worrying staring at an opponent who is still standing when I don't have that extra round.

There are many documented cases where a person defending themselves were able to and did fire lot more rounds than 5~6. I see too many people pushing the argument of “By the time 5~6 shots are fired, the fight is over,” which is nothing more than logically flawed over-generalization.

If a person has an empty gun, and the opponent trying to kill that person is staring at the person, does anyone think this person would care about "diminishing return" of extra rounds?

...There's a reason 6 shots were chosen way back when. The best size for what a fighting pistol is supposed to do; fire and fall back. Much smaller, there's too little payload; much bigger, you are no longer as mobile....

Reason why 6 shots were chosen is because of engineering limitation hundreds of years ago. Modern day 17 shot 9mm pistols, even full size, are still smaller and lighter than 4 inch barrel revolvers.

"Fire and fall back." However, falling back is not always an option. In some situations, opportunity to fall back may open only after multiple rounds have been exchanged. Also, I have never heard of someone having a mobility problem during combat because their service pistol was too big.

...
At some point, if we need enough rounds of pistol, we should really have a carbine (or some backup ) if we want to approach this logically.
…

We cannot CCW a carbine. Pretentious logical high ground does not help anyone.

...
Because of the factors I mentioned earlier, capacity alone cannot make up for other tactical disadvantages inherent to pistols.
….

No one is arguing that it is okay to use bad tactics when a person has a higher capacity pistol. However, people cannot always avoid getting into tactical disadvantage, and when they find themselves in that situation, low capacity hurts more.

….
It isn't the limiting factor. Hasn't been for 200 years.
...

It was not considered to be a limiting factor 200 years ago because the bad guys were also limited to 6 shots too. Situation is not the same now.

One person defending against 2 or more with low capacity pistol was always a limiting factor.

...
But it's easy to point to a higher number and say "better,"
…

Because it is.

... and from a military/LEO standpoint, higher capacity means more sorties between reloads. From a SD perspective, how many sorties do we expect? My unfounded decision is that it is only one.

TCB

Sorties? As if military / LEO launch multiple times from their base without reloading after getting into gun fights each “sortie.” Do you think a cop who fired 5 rounds in a gun fight say "Oh, I still got 10 roudns left in my M92F, I can go out on another 'sortie' without reloading" then go on another shift?

Sorties? Are you kidding me?

 

[JShirley]

Wow! Good post, TestPilot.

CCW will of course be different than home defense: or, in other words, if I can use a rifle, I will. Everyone is different, in some aspects, while as humans, we are identical in others. I like the way a 4" N frame with standard heavy barrel feels. However, I am much faster with practically any autoloading handgun I've tried so far (CAT-9 definitely being an exception. )

I do not believe in magic bullets from imdividual weapons, considering I know of failures to stop as large as 40mm. With that in mind, I will always fire at least twice at a deadly threat, if I can. A good autoloading handgun facilitates that, and definitely speeds reloads.

I unfortunately now live in a state that does not allow the avg citizen to CCW. When I did, my little J frame or KelTec were the handguns I carried when I absolutely expected no trouble, my "pretty sure I don't need a gun" guns, because carrying a J frame when you expect your life might be in danger, and you have the option of carrying something more effective? That'd just be stupid.

John

 

[PabloJ]

If I had to carry in ankle holster I would not want anything but laser sighted 2" J-frame or Colt equivalent. Sadly with exception of one Smith J-frame .357 model with fluted barrel and good combat sights the rest are for all practical purposes are SIGHT-less point & shoot affairs.

 

[JShirley]

Ankle holster?! Have you actually ever carried in an ankle holster?

 

[PabloJ]

Yes, 2" steel J-frame in left handed Galco velcro "wrap around" on inside of right ankle.

 

[JShirley]

So far, ankle holster is just about the least useful way I've found to carry a CCW.

 

[tipoc]

Are 22 Pages Really Enough?


tipoc

 

[TUBBY1]

The question is "how fast can you reload?"

 

[David E]

The question is "how fast can you reload?"

No, the question is;

"How fast and how well can you hit?"

Gun choice can greatly affect those things.

 

[PabloJ]

So far, ankle holster is just about the least useful way I've found to carry a CCW.

It was deep concealment confidence booster kinda thing like taking Centrum Silver daily. It is dreadfully expensive way to go. Need grip laser plus two holsters at nearly $100 each (during summer itch develops after > two days of consecutive wear on same side so ankles must be changed). As I said some people do not need to carry firearms at all..... didn't say it was practical or frugal way to go.

 

[David E]

It was deep concealment confidence booster. It is dreadfully expensive way to go. Need grip laser plus two holsters at nearly $100 each (during summer itch develops after > two days of consecutive wear on same side so ankles must be changed). As I said some people do not need to carry firearms at all..... didn't say it was practical or frugal way to go.

For a guy who hates guns, you sure seem to have a lot of unusual experience with them.

 

[PabloJ]

The question is "how fast can you reload?"

Never carried reload for revolver,....ever. If you want to laugh check One hand Reloading in GunDigest Book of the Revolver. Overall I would rate this book A or excellent.
Now you know why I like higher rear sight for my semi-automatic..... surprisingly almost none that carry this type of weapon ever get it and always prefer low almost flat rear sights which in reality are worthless.

 

[TUBBY1]

No speed load?

Didn't know I had to tie one hand behind my back. Rules seem to change with each reply.when I have a wheel gun I have a speed loader.you guys are brutal.

 

[PabloJ]

Didn't know I had to tie one hand behind my back. Rules seem to change with each reply.when I have a wheel gun I have a speed loader.you guys are brutal.

I gave up after trying: HKS, Safariland, speed strips, and moon clips. The only solution would be top-break weapon with one-piece moon clip of substantial construction. Last .357
top break revolver I have seen was made in USSR. The Chiappa could be engineered for top open configuration but I would not hold my breath as their Tri-barrel shotgun has three smooth-bore barrels. How difficult would it be to make top barrel rifled? That would be a splendid and unique weapon......I would then actually buy one of their shotguns.

 

[TUBBY1]

I'm over 60 and shake like Ali, but still reload fairly quickly. Granted, no one is shooting at me when I'm practicing .big difference I'm sure