Why so many rounds?

[Warp]

No place is 100% safe.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Nobody ever said or implied that every place was equally safe/dangerous to every other place.

But it is 100% wrong, plain and simple, to state or imply there are neighborhoods you can live in that guarantee you won't ever face 3+ foes. Especially since I doubt any of us, here talking about CARRY guns, spend the entirety of our lives in our own neighborhoods anyway. Probably never an entire week and more often than not, not even an entire day

 

[Deaf Smith]

No place is 100% safe but some places and/or actions are considerably safer than others.

But, just cause one LIVES in a 'safe place' does not mean they travel in that same place all the time.

I live in a good neighborhood, but there are so many places in East Texas, so many bad areas one may travel through just by accident, it's hard to say if you will need one bullet, 1000 bullets, or just a smile and a gun;-) Hence one carries what they want and it will either suffice or it won't.

The national average is maybe 2 rounds per fight. Guess a 2 shot derringer is 'the thing' if you believe in averages (which is at the 50 percent level.)

I don't.

Deaf

 

[Warp]

I do believe the numbers that say the average is about 3 rounds. That rule of 3's that says 3 rounds, 3 seconds, 3 yards. But of course the average person never needs a gun at all. Those averages...

 

[Kleanbore]

I do believe the numbers that say the average is about 3 rounds. That rule of 3's that says 3 rounds, 3 seconds, 3 yards. But of course the average person never needs a gun at all. Those averages...

I have no factual basis on which to believe that three rounds is the average, but it doesn't matter. Averages don't matter. If one does have to shoot, one round may suffice. Or not. It is unlikely that it would. Three? That's possible. But one might need seven.

The "rule of threes" just might describe a real outcome, somewhere, at some time, but that is extremely unlikely. If a defender is attacked at close range, three seconds is enough for our "average" attacker to move about forty five or fifty feet--game over.

And one would be extremely unlikely to squeeze off shots at one second intervals against any moving attacker.

 

[psyopspec]

Averages only matter in average gunfights. If I get to choreograph mine to make sure it falls in that category, I just won't go.

Until I develop those prescient abilities, I've already paid significant opportunity cost after which it's easy to carry a higher capacity gun that's easier to shoot well.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Nonsense. What does regret have to do with anything? The question needing the answer is "did you have enough gun/ammo to stop a threat?" The one instance I was shot at generated no thought whatsoever, regret or otherwise, as to the amount of ammo I carried. My only preoccupation was relief to be alive.



I disagree. Your lifestyle and location have very much to do with your potential threat level. Choices people make have greater impact on their lives than dumb luck. No place is 100% safe but some places and/or actions are considerably safer than others. A simple fact of life.

Very true, don't go to stupid places with stupid people and do stupid things will keep you out of most problems.

 

[200Apples]

Could it be because the high capacity magazines have led people to rely on quantity instead of quality? Was it like that when the usual load was six in a wheelgun or seven in a 1911?

I’d be curious to hear from the old school guys around here...

I may not be old school THR, but I have an old-school way of looking at firearms, hunting and defensive shooting.

...after which it's easy to carry a higher capacity gun that's easier to shoot well.

And which may indeed require several shots to neutralize the threat(s). Have a look at the latest Dixie Gun & Pawn robbery attempt for another first-shot stop for the .45ACP... a big round and from an easy-to-shoot 1911 pattern pistol.

(Nothing personal. Only using a sentence of your post as an illustration.)


This thread was started by a PH in East Africa. In the bush, it's one big round and one good hit that matters. It's not too different elsewhere.

 

[Kleanbore]

Very true, don't go to stupid places with stupid people and do stupid things will keep you out of most problems.

Excellent advice, but many people do have to shop at big box stores, or use ATMs, or stop to refuel their automobiles. Those are the waterholes in the Serengeti for many predators.

 

[Kleanbore]

I may not be old school THR, but I have an old-school way of looking at firearms, hunting and defensive shooting.






And which may indeed require several shots to neutralize the threat(s). Have a look at the latest Dixie Gun & Pawn robbery attempt for another first-shot stop for the .45ACP... a big round and from an easy-to-shoot 1911 pattern pistol.

(Nothing personal. Only using a sentence of your post as an illustration.)


This thread was started by a PH in East Africa. In the bush, it's one big round and one good hit that matters. It's not too different elsewhere.

I would not count on one shot from my .45 ACP having any greater effectiveness in stopping than one from my 9mm.

That "one good hit", should I be able to make it, will involve striking something hidden that moving in three directions within the body of a violent criminal actor, and it will result more from luck than fromm anything else. Fast multiple shots improve tha chances of making that "one good hit."

 

[Warp]

I may not be old school THR, but I have an old-school way of looking at firearms, hunting and defensive shooting.



And which may indeed require several shots to neutralize the threat(s). Have a look at the latest Dixie Gun & Pawn robbery attempt for another first-shot stop for the .45ACP... a big round and from an easy-to-shoot 1911 pattern pistol.

(Nothing personal. Only using a sentence of your post as an illustration.)


This thread was started by a PH in East Africa. In the bush, it's one big round and one good hit that matters. It's not too different elsewhere.

And where did that round impact?

 

[DT Guy]

Just a reminder about averages; if the 'average' gun fight is 3 rounds, that means for every one that was ended with 1, there had to be another than needed 5. Averages often mislead....


Larry

 

[X-Rap]

And which may indeed require several shots to neutralize the threat(s). Have a look at the latest Dixie Gun & Pawn robbery attempt for another first-shot stop for the .45ACP... a big round and from an

There was no doubt a solid DRT shot but there were more rounds sent downrange that were no where's near as effective.
What can we attribute that to?
What if the shots of the three robbers was as effective?
What if the two that ran only stepped outside to regroup and came back on the guy that shot his 7-8 rounds to slide lock.
I see the pawn brokers mindset in that shooting as being a much bigger factor than caliber or pattern of pistol.
It would be interesting to speak to the guy and see what his views on capacity were after the shooting.

 

[JTQ]

You are delusional to think you can avoid violent criminals or a certain number of violent criminals by living in 'the right neighborhood'.

Why don't you just move to a "zero bad guy" neighborhood?

Thanks for the input. I'll look into it.

Blacksmoke wrote,
If a guy on an Army base will go nuts and start killing people, that can happen anywhere.

For clarity, that was a "one bad guy" area.

 

[strambo]

I disagree. Your lifestyle and location have very much to do with your potential threat level. Choices people make have greater impact on their lives than dumb luck. No place is 100% safe but some places and/or actions are considerably safer than others. A simple fact of life.

I agree with the statement above. The problem is an overall "Threat Level" consists of a number of factors and yet most people conflate them all into one-risk frequency (odds it will occur).

Typically when evaluating and mitigating risk you primarily evaluate the risk severity and risk frequency resulting in an initial overall risk level. Then, apply mitigating factors (as needed) to reduce your overall risk exposure from the baseline to something acceptable.

So, living in a "nice" neighborhood only lowers the frequency, but not the severity. The severity of a home invasion or robbery is the same no matter the neighborhood. So, to say for example "I only need a 5 shot snub because I live in a nice neighborhood" is not accurate. The criminals aren't nicer or a lower threat if you encounter one...it is just the odds of that encounter are lower.

An example of the whole process would look like this: Let's use home invasion where the baseline is being un-prepared and in a bad neighborhood. The severity is extreme, if it happens it is very bad, potential for serious injury and death. The frequency is still low. The combined risk level for extreme severity, but low frequency makes it a high overall risk.

So, to address the "low" frequency, we could move to a better location making the frequency go from "low" (can expect it to happen at some point in lifespan) to "unlikely" (can expect it won't happen in lifespan). You can also harden the home and adopt other security measures lowering the chances they'll get in the home even more. To address the "severity" you could have a dog and alarm for early warning, a safe room, body armor, a high cap weapon, light, and training, same for spouse etc. (any combination of these and more that are doable for you) These all lower your risk of death or severe injure should they get inside from the baseline of "nothing." Applying all of these mitigating factors would result in an overall "low" or "negligible" residual risk level from home invasion from our baseline ("High") of the unprepared person starting out in a bad neighborhood.

 

[Kleanbore]

So, living in a "nice" neighborhood only lowers the frequency, but not the severity. The severity of a home invasion or robbery is the same no matter the neighborhood. So, to say for example "I only need a 5 shot snub because I live in a nice neighborhood" is not accurate. The criminals aren't nicer or a lower threat if you encounter one...it is just the odds of that encounter are lower.

That's exactly right.

 

[Deanimator]

I've never heard anybody who's been in a real gunfight say, "I wish I'd brought less ammunition."

 

[Warp]

I agree with the statement above. The problem is an overall "Threat Level" consists of a number of factors and yet most people conflate them all into one-risk frequency (odds it will occur).

Typically when evaluating and mitigating risk you primarily evaluate the risk severity and risk frequency resulting in an initial overall risk level. Then, apply mitigating factors (as needed) to reduce your overall risk exposure from the baseline to something acceptable.

So, living in a "nice" neighborhood only lowers the frequency, but not the severity. The severity of a home invasion or robbery is the same no matter the neighborhood. So, to say for example "I only need a 5 shot snub because I live in a nice neighborhood" is not accurate. The criminals aren't nicer or a lower threat if you encounter one...it is just the odds of that encounter are lower.

An example of the whole process would look like this: Let's use home invasion where the baseline is being un-prepared and in a bad neighborhood. The severity is extreme, if it happens it is very bad, potential for serious injury and death. The frequency is still low. The combined risk level for extreme severity, but low frequency makes it a high overall risk.

So, to address the "low" frequency, we could move to a better location making the frequency go from "low" (can expect it to happen at some point in lifespan) to "unlikely" (can expect it won't happen in lifespan). You can also harden the home and adopt other security measures lowering the chances they'll get in the home even more. To address the "severity" you could have a dog and alarm for early warning, a safe room, body armor, a high cap weapon, light, and training, same for spouse etc. (any combination of these and more that are doable for you) These all lower your risk of death or severe injure should they get inside from the baseline of "nothing." Applying all of these mitigating factors would result in an overall "low" or "negligible" residual risk level from home invasion from our baseline ("High") of the unprepared person starting out in a bad neighborhood.

Very well articulated.

Usually people just say "sometimes it's not the odds, but the stakes"...this above post lays it out much more succinctly

 

[usp9]

I've never heard anybody who's been in a real gunfight say, "I wish I'd brought less ammunition."

I wonder how many times you heard someone say after their gunfight "Wish I'd brought more ammo". Really... ever?

 

[X-Rap]

There doesn't seem to be a lessons learned questionnaire after gunfights. Perhaps there is a future for someone to track down survivors and pose useful questions.
No doubt a book could be written on the topic.
It's hard to imagine one who survived against more than one attacker or who missed or used more than 60% of their ammo wouldn't say they wished for more.

 

[Warp]

I wonder how many times you heard someone say after their gunfight "Wish I'd brought more ammo". Really... ever?

I have read plenty of accounts where the person stated wishing they had a larger gun, or higher capacity gun, or spare magazine.

 

[barnbwt]

Why load a magazine to full capacity? Dumb question, right?

 

[Deaf Smith]

I wonder how many times you heard someone say after their gunfight "Wish I'd brought more ammo". Really... ever?

There are cases where police have ran out of ammo and MANY cases where GIs ran out of ammo. Lance Thomas ran his 5 shot J frames out of ammo and had to run to another gun. He then decided (after surviving his first gun fight) to go to semi-automatics and LARGE magazines.

So yea, I bet some have said that.

Deaf

 

[usp9]

There are cases where police have ran out of ammo and MANY cases where GIs ran out of ammo. Lance Thomas ran his 5 shot J frames out of ammo and had to run to another gun. He then decided (after surviving his first gun fight) to go to semi-automatics and LARGE magazines.

So yea, I bet some have said that.

Deaf

The OP's original discussion starter, post number 1, posed the question this way;

Why so many rounds in the magazine? I’m not talking of SWAT team members or LEOs who may find themselves at anytime under fire from multiple armed ne’er-do-good, but of the guns used as daily ballast in the waistband by Joe-you-and-me.

My thoughts are that for the realistic threat faced by the vast majority of us, non-professionally involved in violent action...

I think some of you are taking the topic beyond "Joe-you-and-me" events. If staying on topic, the rarity of civilians going beyond a few rounds expended makes it all but useless for one to carry the extended mag plus two reloads and a BUG firepower many have espoused. Do so if you want, no one cares, but please don't equate it to anything approaching necessary for the common Joe.

 

[X-Rap]

Lance Thomas is as good an example of Joe - you - and - me.
You can clearly see how quickly 5 shots go while under attack and defending ones self.

 

[Decoy80]

I'm no expert nor have I drawn a gun on another human being. I pray that Im not ever in that situation, without any options left. Two things would be unacceptable in any sceneriao. Failure to fire for any reason, or running your gun dry of ammo before order is restored/situation is resolved. If you feel that you possibly might need more carry all you think would take care of any foe you might face. I guess pushing a wheelbarrow load of 75 round drums and 30 round magazines might be considered excessive with my Draco but its a personal choice.