The case for LESS ammo capacity (revolver) in a handgun.

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Yes, you read that right. This could go either here or S & T.

Suppose you're being attacked by say, 3 or 4 contact-weapon-armed thugs bent on robbing you (and/or other intentions unknown to you), and they get the jump on you to some extent to where you have a few seconds to draw and shoot after determining it's definitely an aggressive attack, but they are determined enough that continue attacking after the first shot and beyond, and frankly you have no chance to hit them all in CNS, even if you can hit them all *somewhere*, so you have no chance to completely stop the attack - they quickly overwhelm you physically and of course, take your gun.

If you have a 5- or 6-shooter, you've had enough time to empty the gun into the multiple assailants. When they overwhelm you, they take an empty gun. They can then only attack you with the contact weapons, which are typically more survivable and you have a greater chance of having someone intervene before you bleed out.

If you have a wondernine or similar, after 6 shots, you have 11 shots left that these very-PO'ed thugs can use to shoot you in the CNS - game over.

Thoughts?

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Of course, there's the counter-argument - which movie was it that had a line that went something like this:

"Cripessake, Bubba, you ain't got but one arm, and you got two revolvers!"

"Well, if I die, I just don't want it to be on account of not shootin' back."



Tombstone?

 

[freakshow10mm]

I do not agree.

I carry a gun to stop deadly threats. If you try to kill me, I will kill you.

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice.

Tactics with a low capacity weapon against multiple assailants definitely come into play. My training would remind me that while I am drawing my weapon to MOVE out of the line of attack and hopefully put the assailants in a line so their attack is blocked by the criminal in front of them. If they have to move around their buddy to swing at me, that's an additional second I have on my end to defend myself.

Since your scenario involves attackers with impact weapons (bats, clubs, etc) the action will be close. With a low capacity weapon at that distance, I'm going for headshots on at least the first threat, maybe second.

The first attacker being shot will cause a small delay as you get on the second target and eliminate that threat. Hopefully the others will run at that point but if not, shoot them too. KEEP MOVING.

I will never, ever count on someone coming to my aid. How many times are their eye witnesses that just witness and never help? I carry a gun because I cannot trust anyone else with my safety and sure as hell the last thing on my mind is trusting someone else with my life.

In a situation like your description is not the case for low capacity but for high capacity. If you have a group of 3-4+ assailants moving in on you and you know the attack is coming, the best defense is a barrage of fire into the group. 10 shots into 3-4 thugs is more effective than 5-6 into the same.

The thing that troubles me the most about your scenario is that you are admitting defeat and handicapping yourself by the weapon you choose to carry. You are planning on not stopping the threats so you wish to have this end by you running dry and them beating you with bats and clubs until your knight in shining armor comes to rescue you. That is a defeatist attitude.

This is the reason I carry a semi auto and an extra magazine. I have 9+1 rounds of 10mm (1911) with a 9rd mag as backup. It is effective, it has a respectable amount of capacity, and is faster to reload. I do not have the time to dedicate nor the will to practice reloading a revolver. In fact I do not own a single revolver. They are not my idea of a defensive arm that I would trust with my life.

 

[lions]

But what if you would have had enough time to fire off a couple more shots and potentially stopped the threat?

It just seems like there are an awful lot of things that have to go just like you laid them out for this to be possible. Such as: number of thugs, weapons they carry, distance and time when they choose to attack you, and someone is to intervene before you die.

I'll take my chances with more ammunition.

 

[Jim Watson]

M. Ayoob once had a study of capacity versus effectiveness. He concluded that a single stack auto with 7-10 rounds was a worthwhile improvement over a revolver with 5 or 6. But it seemed that a high capacity magazine tended to promote spray and pray shooting with fewer and poorer hits.

 

[General Geoff]

I carry a gun to stop deadly threats. If you try to kill me, I will kill you.

I'd rescind or edit that post if I were you. Statements like that have a nasty habit of coming back to bite you in the arse later on if you ever ARE involved in a shooting.

 

[General Geoff]

They can then only attack you with the contact weapons, which are typically more survivable and you have a greater chance of having someone intervene before you bleed out.

That's a really bad assumption to make. With blunt contact weapons, you have much greater probability of massive internal trauma, as well as shattered bone. You might live, but the question is, what kind of quality of life would you have afterwards?

Getting shot is NOT the worst thing in the world.

 

[freakshow10mm]

I don't care.

 

[ArmedBear]

In a situation like your description is not the case for low capacity but for high capacity. If you have a group of 3-4+ assailants moving in on you and you know the attack is coming, the best defense is a barrage of fire into the group. 10 shots into 3-4 thugs is more effective than 5-6 into the same.

(Lord, I apologize . . . and be with the starving pygmies in New Guinea amen.)

 

[Robert]

The head is too small a target to hit in a high stress shooting environment. I am aiming center mass, or shooting from retention if they are too close, and having faith that my .45 Hydra Shocks do their job. Hoping that someone comes along before I bleed out is not an options. I will win the fight, no other thought enters my mind. At the time.

The movie you quote is Unforgiven.

 

[GRIZ22]

Suppose you're being attacked by say, 3 or 4 contact-weapon-armed thugs bent on robbing you

There is a fallacy in your scenario. Criminals are not all that stupid. They are attacking you because it will be fun. When they hear the loud noise and see one of their group shot, it isn't fun anymore.

You do say that they continue to attack you (not likely after one of them is shot) but let's say they do. In that case my efforts will be to try to hit them anywhere. If them overwhelm they will take your gun. If you have the time to empty your low capacity gun the only result would be you get beat to death with their contact weapons. How would that be better than being shot with your own gun? As another response noted, conceding and accepting defeat is no attitude to survive any confrontation.

I'm going for headshots on at least the first threat, maybe second.


Using this tactic would most likely result in more than a few misses. It is easy to say headshots while sitting at a keyboard. Center mass hits are much easier to do fast. You may not stop them but you can sure slow them down.

I would go to ground and use my ammo trying to stop my assailants.

 

[heron]

This scenario needs an assigned probability . . .

What did/would you do to cause that many people to continue pressing an attack after you open fire on them? Sounds like an LA riot/EOTWAWKI situation.

Avoidance may not be an option (you could get surprised) but how about flight? Maybe shoot the closest one and then high-tail it outta there? Remember, defending yourself is not the same thing as fighting (see "No-Nonsense Self-Defense").

 

[wuchak]

The chances of the rest of the group continuing the attack after one or more are shot is IMHO unlikely. Most criminals are not brave nor do they have a high level of group cohesiveness in the face of gunfire. They are looking for easy prey and once they find out you are able to defend yourself they're gonna run.

I'm reminded of the made for TV move "The Gambler" with Kenny Rogers. When confronted with a group of (I think) 7 thugs Kenny drew his derringer. The lead bad guy said, "He only has two shots in that thing and there are seven of us." Kenny replied,"But the question is which two of you are going to take the bullets to leave the other five to do the fighting?" There were no volunteers to take the bullets.

 

[freakshow10mm]

ArmedBear, are you saying that 10 rapid fire shots into your attackers is not more effective than 6 rapid shots into the same?

Two things that count in a gun fight: hits and speed. Hit your target and hit them often. This isn't slow fire competition this is your life. Shoot as fast as you can and still get hits. Yes I've been in a gun fight and I survived. He missed, I didn't, and I shot back a lot.

 

[Dravur]

Ya know....

I guess if fewer rounds means you won't get shot with your own gun....

Then why keep it loaded at all?

Why not just carry an empty gun and at the first sign of trouble, toss it to the bad guys and scream out..."AHA, you shant kill me with my own gun!"

I dunno, seems kinda silly.

 

[psyopspec]

You're scenario is built on a series of assumptions that lead to a conclusion that's highly unlikely, even as far as defensive uses of a firearm go.

1) You're counting on being in a neighborhood full of thugs that won't back down after presentation/firing/wounding.

2) You're counting on being in this neighborhood in condition white, such that you will be surprised without cover, mobility, or a plan.

3) You're counting on getting your gun taken from you.

4) You're counting on being at the mercy of four gangbangers who wouldn't back down after one of them is hit. How do you see this ending in a positive way?

5) Suppose you empty the revolver and have about two seconds for a reload. Are you saying you would purposely not reload because you're counting on your gun being taken from you and you want it to be empty when they do? If so, why not just open the cylinder at the first sign of trouble, dump the rounds on the sidewalk, and then toss it to them?

 

[Gunfighter123]

Hello Dr. T,
Interesting -- BUT -- if I place myself in the BGs shoes , you have shot/killed some of my "homeys" --- now you are out of ammo and at my mercy ???

It MAY HAVE BEEN BETTER to have saved the last round for killing yourself !!!!

One good smack with a ballbat to the head = game over. Now "he/them" are standing over the person that shot/killed pals of theirs. I am not a betting kind of person , but I would bet that you will not be shown any mercy.

If , on the other hand ---- you have a hi-cap type of firearm , and you find yourself getting the boots put to you , YOU MIGHT hit the mag release button and fire a last shot { at yourself} ????

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Good discusssion all - I ain't giving up my wondernines & wonder.45, that's for sure - wanted to posit the theory out there however.

 

[Hawk]

Granting a scenario where multiple assailants continue to advance I would guess we're dealing with a dedicated lot. Since you've shot one or more of their number prior to your weapon being taken I'd submit there's nothing that can happen to you with them holding any of your remaining rounds that contact weapons wouldn't accomplish just as handily.

People survive gunshots all the time. They also die at the ends of contact weapons all the time.

In fact, I'd view your scenario as an advertisement for carrying more rounds - if they used the rounds it would likely hurt less than the beating to death they're about to administer.

I thought I had heard it all in the "fewer rounds have advantages" parade. Clearly I was wrong - this is the most imaginative yet.

 

[ArmedBear]

All other things being equal, there's no case for less ammo capacity.

All other things are not equal.

If I really expected to find myself in the position that aptly-self-named freakshow10mm described, I would not want his gun. 10mm in a 1911 has costs: capacity and rapid-fire accuracy.

I'd take a gun that's quicker on followthrough, and easier to keep on target, in rapid fire -- and one that holds more rounds. A 19+1 round 9mm would be a far better choice. In each hand, with two more in holsters.

I'd also only travel in a heavily-armed group of ten or more people.

I don't even like 9mm, but if I'm going to "spray and pray", then that would probably be my best option.

Everything is a trade-off in the real world.

 

[Deanimator]

These zombie attack threads get old after a while...

 

[Captain Kyle]

Sounds like too many what ifs to me. I will take high capacity

 

[Funderb]

makes me wonder who would keep attacking under that volume of fire?

 

[crebralfix]

The solution, in such a situation, probably does not involve only the gun. It's probably a gun-knife-hand combo solution. Also remember movement to cover is important...going to a door to funnel the attackers is a good idea.

Also, don't forget an empty gun can be used as a bludgeon. Combine that with some knife skills, the will to win and I think things won't go as badly as you envision. The main thing is to not give up and fight through them.

Too many people neglect their knife and empty hand skills...as well as physical fitness.

 

[ArmedBear]

The solution, in such a situation, probably does not involve only the gun. It's probably a gun-knife-hand combo solution.

It also probably involves getting cocky and going somewhere really stupid, unless you're wearing a uniform of one sort or another.