Additional Semiautomatics Capacity - Practically Worthwhile?

[RWK]

A frequent TFL discussion-point focuses on the additional capacity autoloaders have in comparison to revolvers. Of course, those additional rounds are ONLY valuable if they are needed. Therefore, here is the question: Does anyone have any documented factual information that provides the percentage of “firefight” requiring more than six rounds for either law enforcement and/or for CCW licensees?

The old FBI "rule of threes" – three seconds or less, three shots or less, three yards or less – still appears generally valid to me. However, I am open to factual information that suggests a substantial percentage of gunfights necessitate more than six rounds.

 

[JohnKSa]

Actually according to the statistics compiled by John Lott, the average firearm self-defense scenario doesn't involve ANY shots being fired. Most people are severely averse to being shot and don't need a citizen to pull the trigger on them to convince them to cease their evil ways. And, in many other scenarios, a shot is fired either as a warning, or simply misses the attacker.

Altogether, 98% of defensive gun uses do not involve the attacker being shot.

So the VAST majority of self-defense scenarios involving a firearm require that the firearm contain ZERO rounds (or maybe one blank cartridge) to be effective.

See a problem with preparing for the average scenario?

 

[abelew]

One would hope that all the rounds contained in a magazine were not needed. However, the "what if" arises. IMHO, having leftover rounds is better than not having them.

 

[BillCA]

The problem with statistics is that they don't always tell you what you want to know. As JohnKSa pointed out, 98% of incidents involve ZERO shots fired. Most incidents involve only one aggressor. Most aggressors flee the area after the gun is presented or shots are fired at them. But there's always the 80/20 rule. If 20% of that 2% are multiple aggressors who DON'T flee, NOW you need the extra ammo.

Just like 90% of the time your home isn't in danger of floods. Of the 10% of the time it is, 20% of that time it'll be catastrophic. That's why you pay for the insurance.

Against multiple attackers your need for "more bang" goes way up. You not only have to engage your primary hostile, but keep track of the other(s). Those others, now that they've been surprised and alerted are probably moving different directions. I *know* my accuracy against a moving target isn't near as good as it is against that stationary B-27 silhoutte!

Q: How many rounds is enough?
A: Enough to do the job.

Actually it depends on what you expect to encounter. Or what your worst case scenario would be. For me, 8 rounds of .45ACP carried is usually backed up by another 14 rounds in spare mags.
Rounds 1-8 are for self-defense.
Rounds 9-15 are for defending my position.
Rounds 16-22 are for covering my retreat!

For wheelguns, a 2-shot drill covers a trio of bandits nicely. Six shots, move to cover and reload. Check for accomplices, secure the area, phone police.
When carried, I always carry at least one speedloader and up to 3 in winter.

A friend snickered a few years ago when I carried my Glock 17 and 5 spare hi-cap magazines. That's 102 rounds. At that time, I rode a motorcycle everywhere, including the 45 miles each way to work. Worst case scenario, for me, was an earthquake cutting off my route home (it did for 2 hours in the 1989 Loma Prieta 'quake) and having to walk home some 40 miles, sometimes through some rough areas. Figure no cops, phones, power and possibly no vehicle (specifically one with no doors to lock or windows to roll up). It didn't seem unreasonable at the time.

 

[abelew]

Id rather be worring about hitting what I shoot at, then worring about not having enought bullets to do it (i am in favor of high capacity-the more bullets you have, the less you have to worry about when the 6 shots in the revo run out). Now, I am not against revolvers in the least bit, nor am I saying they are an ineffective weapon. I just think that if I had to choose, I would pick having some "bang" in reserve, than having some "click."

 

[FallenPhoenix]

if you're preferred carry gun is capable of holding x number of rounds, fill it up! You never know what you may need and the day you carry less, is the day you need more.

 

[yorec]

The chance of me needing a gun to defend myself in the first place is really quite small...

But I carry one anyway - just in case.

I also imagine that the chance of me needing more than 6 rounds to defend myself is really quite small...

But I carry more anyway - just in case.

I look on it as a matter of being prepared.

 

[Foxy]

See a problem with preparing for the average scenario?

As my statistics professor said, "And then there's always the guy who drowned in a pool that was an average of two inches deep." Averages don't capture the extreme outliers!

A friend snickered a few years ago when I carried my Glock 17 and 5 spare hi-cap magazines. That's 102 rounds.

When I first read that, I thought, "Wow, is he planning on laying down covering fire and falling back by squads?" But the rest of your paragraph is a strong argument for never knowing what is "too much."

 

[gb_in_ga]

Ok, I have 2 situations in mind, keeping in mind that I am not a LEO:

First, I am not at home and I am carrying. My real concern here is to extract myself from a life threatening situation. What I really want to do is retreat, and perhaps I'll have to make sure that my wife gets away as well, if she is there. Can I do that with 5 or 6 shots before needing to reload? I think so. I'm really trying to A> stop an immediate close range threat and B> cover my retreat. If the threat isn't close range, I'll be running instead of shooting, looking for the best cover and route for escape. Discretion is the better part of valor, ya know. Since I'm not a LEO, I'm not concerned with completely neutralizing the threat. Instead, I'm just trying to save my hide, and perhaps my wife's as well.

Second, I am at home. There is no room to retreat. My real concern is to neutralize the threat by intimidation or if necessary the actual use of deadly force. Can I do that with the 6 shots in my 686 that I have for HD? I think so, especially since I also have 2 speedloaders ready to go. I don't feel undergunned with the revolver, it'll get the job done.

 

[Tripplethreat]

One of the original purposes for carrying an auto over a revolver was not high cpacity,but the ability to reload faster if necessary,and to carry ammo pre loaded in a feed device as opposed to loose rounds for a revolver.
This was before the days of speed loaders of course,but some ingenious pistoleros were diligent enough to carry their own form of speedloader for their single action revolvers. SPARE LOADED CYLINDERS.

 

[xXStarScreamXx]

Like someone else said:

I'd rather be thinking of hitting my target than worried about running out of ammo.

I'm still semi -new to this, my aim is improving but I'm still not excellent. Personally I like the buffer of those extra 4-6 shots in my mag.

Also, with my P99 I can keep my sights right where i want them use one finger to drop the mag, slap a new one in then my thumb to release the slide and be ready to roll in no time keeping the three dots of my sights even. I practice it, over and over. If for some reason 12 rounds of Black Talons or hydra Shoks dont drop someone I'm not letting them out of my sights.


I've tried with a speed loader, I lack the skill to replicate what i do with my p99 with a revolver.

 

[abelew]

Better to have extras, then have empties

 

[Double Naught Spy]

RWK, you can find and we can find all sorts of information about all sorts of gun fights and that information will mean absolutely nothing about whatever potential gunfight in which you might participate. Previous fights are mutually exclusive events from one another and from the fight in which you may enter. So whatever the averages are, something I think you are equating with a norm, are not relevant. The statistic you need to know is what is going to be the norm of YOUR fight, even better, what is needed to come out victorious for YOUR fight, but these factors won't be known definitively until AFTER YOUR fight.

Your logic that the carry of additional rounds in only valuable if those rounds are needed is disturbing to me at several levels. By your logic, carrying a gun will only be valuable if it is needed. You can't devalue carrying extra ammo under the auspices that it won't be valuable unless needed without first devalue the carrying of a firearm.

So you perceive some sort of incurred cost by overburdening yourself with the carry of a few extra rounds? Will carrying these rounds somehow lower your quality of life? If you do need those rounds, do you know what they will be worth? They won't be valuable, but pricelss.

The FBI Rules of 3 works very well for all situations in which it applies. It works very poorly in all those situations where more is needed. Plus, one of those things you are probably failing to consider is that the Rules of 3 are inclusive of those situations where folks had malfunctions and could not continue the fight, or were incapacitated or killed before being able to get off more rounds. On top of that, in fights where more rounds were needed by FBI agents and could not be had, those agents often ended up screwed. Talk about priceless, consider the FBI agents who ran out of ammo in the Miami FBI shootout in 1986. Hey, some did have spare ammo, carried conveniently in ammo boxes, not exactly in a readily useable format.

If you want to talk about percentages and norms, you don't need to carry a gun and if you do carry, it doesn't need to be loaded. Why? First and foremost, most non-LEO never need to draw on anybody, inclusive of CCW people and people defending their homes (hand and long guns). In cases where a gun needs to be produced by these people, discharging is only necessary very rarely.

So what is the percentage where more than 6 shots are needed? Of the top of my head, I would guess that it is 100% where 6 shots failed to stop the aggression of the bad guys(s).

How would the gun shots needed calculations be produced? There are some relevant factors. The percentage will never be higher than the number of rounds present. If you think about it, the FBI stats were produced based on a 6 shot revolver capacity. While the average number of shots might be 3, that was determined partially based on events where just one shot was needed and events where all six or more were needed and the agents expended all 6 rounds. By the time they might have managed to reload, several additional seconds would have passed and in that time, the bad guys having effected their escape. The fight might have been over in 3 seconds, but sometimes simply because the agents ran out of ammo by then and didn't need to resume the fight after reloading as the bad guys were gone.

So when might more ammo be needed? (SLA, Miami, North Hollywood, Mt. Carmel,30's era gangs, The Amadou Diallo Shooting)
1. When 6 rounds, even hitting the target, don't stop the target
2. When the target is on PCP or other meds
3. When the target is overly determined
4. When there are multiple bad guys (SLA, Miami, North Hollywood, Mt. Carmel,30's era gangs)
5. When suppression fire is needed to keep the bad guys pinned or occupied (one citizen documented event from Houston in Waters' book, "The Best Defense."
6. When attempting to stop a moving vehicle endangering you or others
7. When the gun fight is a running (pursuit) gun fight

If you check out the events, what you will likely find its that when more than 6 are needed, it is much more than 6.

 

[cje1980]

What Double Naught Spy said. Maybe civilians might be able to live by statistics but LEO and military can certainly not. Most situations will not require more than six shots but that is exactly the point. "Most situations". All I need to see is one documented case that shows that a shootout has required more than six shots and that is enough for me to require a semi-auto with adequate capacity. Just remember that people will always try push their agendas and manipulate statistics or in many cases ignore them. It's a dangerous practice to say that 80% or 92% of shootouts only used 3 or 5 or whatever rounds. What about the rest of incidents. Was the shooter simply outgunned. Never play by the statistics unless they are 100% in your favor. If not then go by whatever gives you the best chance of survival.

 

[caegal]

I go with the statistics, and statisically I really only need a few rounds, six should be enough to get out of any danger that I am in.

I tend to be a realist about the situation, and it seems to me that a CCW should be used to neutralize an immediate threat, and then allow for a very hasty retreat. Not only are situations that involved multiple armed threats vary rare, but the chances of surviving them are even more rare, regardless of amount of ammo carried.

I have not seen many Hollywood shootouts happening on our streets here. One guy gets cover behind a car, three threats take positions behind various obsticals and we exchange gunfire for twenty minutes. It just doesnt happen to us real people. There are a few instances with the police, but that is about all. Nah, when people want you dead, they charge at you, and if they have guns they are firing them at the same time.

The most valid arguement I have heard is that there is someone who is very determined to get me, and they continue to advance after being shot. (for the record, I believe the superhuman crazed person on PCP is a myth) So, to stop the very determined person, I rely on training and several holes in the guys chest.

So for me, to over prepare for something that has very long odds of happening is just silly. YMMV

 

[RWK]

Especially for Double Naught Spy

I, first, want to thank you for your intelligent replies; they are sincerely appreciated.

Second, I want to again acknowledge the substantial differences in LEO and CCW requirements. Even within the LEO community, I suspect there would be a significant differentiation between, for example, the senior officer administrator’s handgun requirements and those of a last-out highway patrolman covering a long stretch on I-95 in South Carolina.

Finally, I want to respond to Double Naught Spy’s very well considered and articulate reply, since it summarizes many of the thoughts of the “you can’t have too much ammunition” proponents.

As my two-decade Navy career ended, I was the program manager in charge of setting requirements, obtaining funding, and delivering those new/enhanced capabilities to the fleet for two major weapons systems. This has been followed, for the more than fifteen years, by very similar detailed analytical and engineering trade-off responsibilities in the defense industry. What I have learned is the necessity of making smart requirements trades, since EVERY situation is constrained (too much weight, too little money, too much difficulty, too little time, and so forth).

To illustrate this in the realm of personal defensive weapons, I am sure we would all agree that a Remington 870 loaded with 00 12 gauge shells is a VERY formidable weapon, but we don’t carry pump shotguns routinely due to their size, weight, and inconvenience. Rather, we select a sidearm “system” (firearm, ammunition, sights, holster, belt, etc.) that meets our requirements within reasonable constraints. That is what my question – and this thread – is truly concerns.

I currently carry a Smith 610-3 revolver, loaded with 175 grain, 10mm, Silvertips. I do so because: (1) the reliability and accuracy of the 610-3 – in my hands – is outstanding; (2) the potency of this 1250+ FPS Silvertip round is irrefutable; and (3) moonclip reloads are fast. Fundamentally, I adhere to the “six for sure” approach, since I have never had a revolver failure-to-fire (although I absolutely acknowledge they happen), but I have experienced and observed failures-to-fire from the very best (quality and maintenance) autoloaders with some frequency.

In addition – and most important – I assess MY requirements (non-LEO in a relatively low-crime suburban area) as not needing more. Obviously, were my probable requirements different, my choices definitely would change. Therefore, my selection (cited above) does NOT suggest that a state police officer who carries a Sig P226 and 40 rounds of .40 S&W or .357 Sig is overly armed; to the contrary, our requirements are very different.

Double Naught Spy’s reply has given me renewed reasons to think this issue through (for the hundredth time). I would hate to need “only two more rounds” or “only two more seconds” to defend my family successfully.

 

[MX5]

So for me, to over prepare for something that has very long odds of happening is just silly.

Great idea. I think I'll cancel my insurance policies, starting with homeowners. The chances of my house burning to the ground is really remote.

 

[caegal]

Great idea. I think I'll cancel my insurance policies, starting with homeowners. The chances of my house burning to the ground is really remote.

The chances of your house burning down is a lot better than having a shoot out with a half dozen people. But thanks for the sarcasm anyways.

 

[OBIWAN]

Life is FULL of little tradeoffs

I am very impressed with the small amount of EGO that has crept into this discussion. I am not about right/wrong...more about making informed choices.

caegal

Try breaking your statement up and see if it still holds true. Assuming it does happen...can you be over prepared? Most people would say no.

( Not picking on you...you are not wrong...but there is room for discussion)

It is a tired old cliche, but if we knew we were going to a gunfight we would take a rifle.

So you see..we all make some allowances right from the start. We carry handguns because they are convenient and easier to conceal. In trying to make them even more convenient and concealable, we choose smaller weapons and calibers that can sometimes make them harder to shoot well and less effective if/when we hit our target.

And once we make allowances for convenience everything else can be seen as incremental. Some even decide when to carry, like they have some mystical ability to know when tragedy will strike.

Notice that I am not saying that any of those decisions is wrong.

Hopefully they are informed and well thought out. What we (collectively) need to guard against is using junk science, anecdotal evidence, or statistics to cloud the issue...and our minds

Remember...this is not about who is right or wrong...it is about who stays alive

On topic, assuming a minimum caliber, the disadvantages of a revolver are capacity, ease to reload, and for some, shootability. Since no shots are often what is needed, we will not discuss whether 5-6 rounds CAN be enough, but just think about it.

There have been plenty of documented cased of BG's taking 2-3 torso hits with a major caliber and continuing to fight. That is pretty good shooting by anyones standard. That leaves us only 3 rounds left for the shots that miss or hit a non-vital area on what may be a moving target firing a weapon back at you...a tough thing to train for. This ignores the possibility that there might be two BG's, low light, or longer engagement range that may lower your hit probability even further.

So...now have to reload. I happen to believe that if you are not shooting you are moving. So does anyone really believe that reloading a wheelgun will ever be as easy and sure as reloading an auto, especially while moving...hopefully to cover so you can finish?

(Please don't bring up Mr. Miculek unless you can do it as fast as him )

If you practice very hard you can reload pretty fast...but most of us will be quicker and surer to reload an auto. And in most cases, we will be loading more ammo with that reload..and all this is happening while the bad guys continue to try to kill you.

Not a pretty picture with any weapon....absolutely ugly with the wrong weapon...meaning one that you cannot shoot and manipulate well assuming it has a minimum lethal wounding ability (caliber/bullet combo)

There is no science that will tell you that YOU need to carry an auto. Like all answers it comes down to...it depends. we all have a frame of reference that colors our decision. I have never had an auto completely let me down, but I did have a revolver lock up tight when a bullet moved forward under recoil.

So for me, the reliability factor is kind of a wash..only for me.

And I have seen occaisonal students in classes try to keep up with the necessary rate of fire with a wheelgun...and felt bad for them. I have seen some people struggling with an auto that probably would have been better off with a wheelgun...but they will never be able to reload it under stress

I will say that (IMHO) the choice to carry a revolver as my primary would probably encourage me to carry a BUG. And my primary would not be a 5-shot .38 snubby that combines marginal performance with reduced accuracy.

But I aknowledge that for some...that would be "enough gun"

Even if the unthinkable happens and they actually NEED it.

 

[abelew]

The superhuman pcp freak is not a myth. One of the instructors at the Law Enforcement Academy that im at now, is a retired cop. She was teaching us about drugs, and what their effects were. When she came to pcp, she gave us a situation that she was personally involved in. There was a guy at some store, who was going crazy. When she got there, with her partiner, the guy drew down on her, and both her and her partiner opened up on him with .357mags. I think that she said there were a total of 18 center mass hits before it was over. 18 hits with a revolver that shoots 6, accounting for missed shots, leads one to believe that that guy was hopped up on something. I couldnt take 1 hit from a .357 mag, let alone 18 center mass strikes