An example for the endless is 5 enough, I can't handle more than one opponent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There is no algorithmic answer. The answers are heuristic at best. That being said- from my experience with folks who plan for more than the single opponent who falls to one or two shots - reasonable EDC is a Glock, M&P, ish gun (certainly other similar guns work) with an extra mag or two.

That is a reasonable cut off.

Here's a good take on training with mention of those who don't train.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZYQ-B2sdBU

http://blog.krtraining.com/beyond-the-one-percent-part-1/

 

[Lohman446]

What on Earth do you mean by that?

In statistical analysis there is the "standard" bell curve everyone is familiar with.

There are then various positive and negative skews. A positive skew puts more results (and thus the curve of the "bell) further to the left side of the graph. A negative does the opposite.

If you are prepared for the hardest possible encounter (represented in the extreme tail of the graph) it stands to reason you are prepared for the easier ones as well. The point I am trying to make is that very few of us can be prepared for that worst case scenario represented in that little tail of the graph. We have to balance out what "worst case" scenario that we are able to be prepared for and accept it. Perhaps this covers the vast majority of possibilities.

Glenn and others point out that a large sample size is not relevant. By pure sample size the vast majority of individuals in this country will NEVER need a gun in their life to deal with a violent threat. If you need your firearm you are not really worried about if the average encounter is ended with less than X shots (or more than). The only encounter that will matter is the one at hand at the moment.

Brian points out, in slightly different words, that because of the unpredictability of shooting events in general, and the large number of confounding and codependent variables, that our statistical discussions are meaningless. He is likely very correct in this as not of us have actually even managed to offer up the provisions for statistical analysis let alone the data. We are left referencing rather vague ideas of scenarios and how they fall on the "hard" scale in regards to having the least negative outcome.

My reference to Hinckley was an attempt at argument in the absurd to illustrate that no amount of training or equipment (or even man-power) could assure a successful outcome if success involved escaping without injury. So the idea that X amount of training or equipment did such should be discarded. We simply cannot assure that the very extreme case is accounted for and we should not allow ourselves to think it is. Of course for those that argue for extreme amounts of training this same example can be used to argue that "you don't have enough"

 

[OldMarksman]

In statistical analysis there is the "standard" bell curve everyone is familiar with.

You are no doubt referring to a normal or Gaussian distribution.

There are then various positive and negative skews.

Of course. Asymmetrical distributions.

If you are prepared for the hardest possible encounter (represented in the extreme tail of the graph) it stands to reason you are prepared for the easier ones as well.

Yes, it does.

The point I am trying to make is that very few of us can be prepared for that worst case scenario represented in that little tail of the graph. We have to balance out what "worst case" scenario that we are able to be prepared for and accept it.

Yes, we have to establish our own risk threshold.

Perhaps this covers the vast majority of possibilities.

Would you bet your life on it? Would you knowingly travel in an airplane that would only land safely in the "vast majority" of landings? Would you knowingly get into one if there were a 2.3% likelihood that it would crash?

By pure sample size the vast majority of individuals in this country will NEVER need a gun in their life to deal with a violent threat.

That is irrelevant to the discussion.

If you need your firearm you are not really worried about if the average encounter is ended with less than X shots (or more than). The only encounter that will matter is the one at hand at the moment.

That's a fact!

Brian points out, in slightly different words, that because of the unpredictability of shooting events in general, and the large number of confounding and codependent variables, that our statistical discussions are meaningless.

Brian pointed out that your reference to Hinckley was meaningless.

He also pointed out that equipment is only part of the picture.

My reference to Hinckley was an attempt at argument in the absurd to illustrate that no amount of training or equipment (or even man-power) could assure a successful outcome if success involved escaping without injury.

putting the irrelevant Hinckley incident aside, we train and equip ourselves not to ensure success, but to provide us with an acceptable chance of success.

 

[briandg]

ya gotta admit that the squeaky fromme incident just shattered expectations. It shows that nobody can absolutely prepare for the worst, for example, a crazed manson family member coming to pay a visit with a .45. Full auto weapons, armed body guards, snipers, armored vehicle, a ring of armed bullet eaters surrounding the man, and the best surveillance and intelligence possible at the time, and a kook in a red cloak snuck a gun to within a few feet of ford, who was arguably the most important man in the world.

There is no bottom limit to certain things, for example, stupidity or evil. No matter how often you hear the stupidest thing ever spoken, well, there are a million people out there doing their best to top that.

Coincidence is another thing that has no limit. Somewhere on this earth, today, the weirdest thing ever will happen, something that will make being struck by lightning look tame.

For example, I fully expect to die during first contact. I'm going to be taking a whiz, and the reactor core of an FTL ship full of intergalactic nuns who have come to punish us for not paying attention will crash right through the ceiling, killing nobody but myself.

in the last fifty years i have had the most freakish things happen to me that have ever happened in the history of man. If I am surrounded by a dozen jihadists with flame throwers someday, my only weapon will be a gallon of gas.

 

[Xd45owner]

Wow! This thread gets one to rethinking

 

[MandolinMan]

Great article and thanks for sharing.

we train and equip ourselves not to ensure success, but to provide us with an acceptable chance of success.

Good point. No two lethal confrontations are exactly alike and there is no guaranteed outcome. It becomes wise to train for not just the averages ( 3 rounds, 3 yards, etc) but as many different scenarios as possible. I think that this is highlighted by this particular case with officer Stevens. More than 3 rounds were needed, and the initial shots were fired from 15 yards, not feet. And, that it is possible to achieve accurate marksmanship while bullets are flying back.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Good point. No two lethal confrontations are exactly alike and there is no guaranteed outcome.

This is why the statistics can be so problematic. These are mutually exclusive events. The stats are better for understanding historical perspective than actually predicting what will happen in future events. People often make the mistake in believing that just because success happens X% in the past that they therefore have X% chance of being successful and that just isn't the case.

 

[briandg]

Something as simple as getting an unpleasant email before boarding the bus home could be the deciding factor in a confrontation. Mood or attention will factor in if you are held up by an armed assailant.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

I don't think the question of how much is enough will ever be settled. What to carry, how many rounds, how much training, etc. are all questions we have to answer for ourselves. What works for me may not work for you, and vice versa. I didn't know I was going to be born, and I don't know when or how I'm going to die. I just know that I didn't get into shooting to become obsessed with round counts and training for endless possible scenarios in which I will have to defend myself. I have seen the need for more training than what I've learned from shooting paper targets at an indoor range and speaking with the active and retired LEOs that work there, so I've got plans to attend a CFS class in the Spring with a local instructor. For now I am happy with my 5 shot snubbie and two reloads when I'm out in public, but I'm open to changing that at some point. I'm glad to be a member of this site where all these different viewpoints are shared and discussed, even though I sometimes get lost trying to figure out what some of you are saying.

 

[Rangerrich99]

Note: after reading the article through a couple times, I don't think that ammo load or type of weapon or even caliber are the primary arguments within the story. I believe the point of the story is more about situational awareness and close quarters tactics, 2v1. YMMV of course.

Going back to the OP, I think it's fairly obvious that 5 would not have been enough in that scenario. Of course, one could argue, "what if my revolver was a 4-inch .44 mag?" And I would concede that if the good guy in this case could place his first two rounds on each bad guy with a .44 mag, where he did with his Glock 21, then probably the fight would've been over right there. I believe this, because one of the officer's first rounds went through the bad guy's arm, into his chest and stopped near his spine. I posit that a .44 magnum round would've likely went through the spine, ending that guy right there. But the vast majority of people do not carry .44 mags and very few of those who do could place rounds as quickly and accurately as the shooter in question.

Anyway, it's likely that 5 rounds are not probably enough rounds when confronted by two attackers armed with semi-automatic rifles at close range. In fact, it's highly likely that the encounter would've ended far differently had the bad guys decided to stop the car 50 yards farther away and began their attack from there, making effective hits with a pistol much more difficult. Meanwhile hits for the riflemen would've still been pretty easy at those distances.

As far as the discussion of the thread so far, I only EDC a revolver with a speedloader when I'm hunting or fishing or otherwise "outdoors." Because most of the places I go "outdoors" there aren't people. In fact, most of the places I go the population of mountain lions is several times higher than the number of people I might run into. So a revolver carries enough rounds (no one ever is going to have time to reload with an attacking mountain lion whether its armed or not) to do the job.

Anywhere else I carry some form of semi-auto with one spare mag, with a load-out of at least 16 rounds, on up to 25 rounds. I settled on this number, after reading an article a few years ago that basically gave percentages for how often 3 rounds were fired in an incident up to 16 rounds fired in a single incident. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the article or even the exact numbers given for 3 round events, 4 round events, etc.

One of the things I took from that other article is that 10-12 rounds covered about 95% of all defensive shootings over a 10 year period. So it seemed fairly rational to carry at a bare minimum 10 rounds, hopefully in one mag so I wouldn't have to be coordinated enough to execute a tactical reload under fire. After all, I'm not Rambo or John Wick. Or Wild Bill for that matter. I'm a middle-aged freight pilot with a fetish for fly-fishing that likes handgun training.

However, I'm sure that several people reading this thread or dozens of members on this forum would argue that my 16 rounds in two magazines weren't enough "because . . ." and I wouldn't really be able to argue that. A person carries what they want for their own reasons.

I mean, I used to think that back when I lived in a tiny little CO town that I never needed more than 6 rounds out of a revolver (population was 1,100 or so); it's not like some nut would ever come into town and start shooting up the place with a M-16, right? Then Sutherland Springs happens. So who knows?

 

[OhioGuy]

If survival is the end game -- and it is, I think -- you could probably make a case that wearing concealed body armor is statistically more likely to keep you safe than 5 or 10 or 500 rounds of ammunition in any caliber. It may sound silly (of course, carrying a gun sounds silly to a large number of people), but I guess I'd rather be armed with 5 rounds in a snubby while wearing armor, than 50 rounds and two Glocks while not.

Carrying "too few" rounds really means...what? The risk is that you run out of ammo before you've stopped the threat, right? Possibly multiple threats (likely, if you need that much ammo). I agree with all who say that training and vigilance are the most important parts to survival. If I have only 5 rounds and there's still another bad guy left, I'm screwed. If I have a 30 round magazine but lack the skill to engage two targets, I'm screwed. If I'm careless enough to walk into a blind alley where muggers are likely to hang out, I'm screwed.

Since everyone seems to come down on the answer "there is no answer, so carry what you believe keeps you prepared," why do we continue to perpetuate these threads?

I've chosen a compact semi-auto with a 15 round magazine. A spare magazine is easy to carry, and honestly it balances the load on the front of my belt and is actually more comfortable. I've chosen that particular gun because I shoot much better with it than I do with single stack guns. I shoot single stack 9's better than pocket .380s, so my "backup" is a single-stack 9. I tried out a .357 revolver with a 2" barrel, couldn't hit crap with it, and my hand and forearm were tingling after 20 rounds.

So through reasons having nothing to do with needing lots of ammo, my setup ends up being a normal sized 9mm with 30 rounds of ammunition. Does that make me any more prepared than the guy who does carry the 5-rd .357? There's no way to answer that. If we both are accurate, and both only manage to get off one shot, his one .357 may well save him faster than my one 9mm. But even that is unanswerable. There's always the guy who was dropped by a single round, and always the guy on meth who took a dozen rounds to the chest and still ran a mile before dropping.

So there's my answer. Carry what you're comfortable with, and wear body armor everywhere

 

[OldMarksman]

Carrying "too few" rounds really means...what? The risk is that you run out of ammo before you've stopped the threat, right?

Right.

Possibly multiple threats (likely, if you need that much ammo).

Not unlikely, if you are attacked, regardless of how much you end up needing.

I agree with all who say that training and vigilance are the most important parts to survival.

Yep.

Since everyone seems to come down on the answer "there is no answer, so carry what you believe keeps you prepared," why do we continue to perpetuate these threads?

To help people wit the decison-making process.

..., my setup ends up being a normal sized 9mm with 30 rounds of ammunition. Does that make me any more prepared than the guy who does carry the 5-rd .357?

Gives you a greater chance of survival, all other things being equal.

If we both are accurate, and both only manage to get off one shot, his one .357 may well save him faster than my one 9mm.

When it comes to wounding effectiveness, "accuracy" is really a matter of statistical chance, and one has a greater chance if one can fire more controlled shots quickly.

 

[briandg]

I look at the people who stockpile thousands of rounds and dozens of weapons in case of civil unrest, and I can only wonder how many people does that guy really think that he's going to have to kill? How many will be reasonably be willing to kill? How many could he kill and still stay sane?

Would that person actually be able and willing to pull the trigger when the time comes? When he catches somebody taking the apples from his trees, going through his pantry?

I can't even come close to imagining a scenario in which forty mosins still in cosmoline and twenty thousand rounds would really contribute to survival, but the cost of the prep could have been spent on a bit of remote land and some equipment and a motor bike to get around with.

Survival isn't about fireworks, it's about clever planning and actions. A swat team will sometimes use gas or flash bangs instead of bullets.

 

[OhioGuy]

I look at the people who stockpile thousands of rounds and dozens of weapons in case of civil unrest, and I can only wonder how many people does that guy really think that he's going to have to kill? How many will be reasonably be willing to kill? How many could he kill and still stay sane?

Would that person actually be able and willing to pull the trigger when the time comes? When he catches somebody taking the apples from his trees, going through his pantry?

I can't even come close to imagining a scenario in which forty mosins still in cosmoline and twenty thousand rounds would really contribute to survival, but the cost of the prep could have been spent on a bit of remote land and some equipment and a motor bike to get around with.

Survival isn't about fireworks, it's about clever planning and actions. A swat team will sometimes use gas or flash bangs instead of bullets.

It's simple! When the grid goes down, just eat some of the stockpiled ammo and burn the rest to stay warm!

 

[briandg]

That is a much better plan than some of them that I have heard.

A guy who runs a survival blog that I used to follow shared everything he did, what he owned, and if a person paid attention, gave away where he lived. Why in the world would you open a box and post a picture of the new toy, and show the address to the entire world!? Good luck when the grid goes down, there will be locusts at your fencerow.

Don't wear a Rolex out slumming, don't flash a C note when you buy a coke, don't be oblivious when you are standing at an atm with a gold chain on your neck at a bad part of town.

Magazines in every pocket are handy but the weapon isn't the dangerous part, it's the brain. High capacity magazines don't kill bad people, smart guys who have what they need kill bad guys.

 

[BOOGIE the oily]

I look at the people who stockpile thousands of rounds and dozens of weapons in case of civil unrest, and I can only wonder how many people does that guy really think that he's going to have to kill? How many will be reasonably be willing to kill? How many could he kill and still stay sane?

Maybe none.
Maybe the guy is just a gun nut, and that's his excuse so that "the boss" won't be nagging him to hell every time he goes crazy at the LGS.
"No, honey, I'm not buying all those guns just for my pleasure, I'm doing it to protect you, in case an army of flesh eating zombies land right in our backyard, you know...?"
Besides that, what makes you assume the guy is sane, to begin with?

 

[OldMarksman]

Starting to veer off topic....

 

[Nanuk]

If survival is the end game -- and it is, I think -- you could probably make a case that wearing concealed body armor is statistically more likely to keep you safe than 5 or 10 or 500 rounds of ammunition in any caliber. It may sound silly (of course, carrying a gun sounds silly to a large number of people), but I guess I'd rather be armed with 5 rounds in a snubby while wearing armor, than 50 rounds and two Glocks while not.

Have you ever worn "concealable" body armor?

Carrying "too few" rounds really means...what? The risk is that you run out of ammo before you've stopped the threat, right?

Absolutely.

Possibly multiple threats (likely, if you need that much ammo).

More likely than a single threat.

I agree with all who say that training and vigilance are the most important parts to survival. If I have only 5 rounds and there's still another bad guy left, I'm screwed. If I have a 30 round magazine but lack the skill to engage two targets, I'm screwed.

That is all easily preventable, like keeping good tires on your car.

If I'm careless enough to walk into a blind alley where muggers are likely to hang out, I'm screwed.

Robbers are where victims are.

Since everyone seems to come down on the answer "there is no answer, so carry what you believe keeps you prepared," why do we continue to perpetuate these threads?

Not everybody, only those ignorant to the truth of violent crime.

I've chosen a compact semi-auto with a 15 round magazine. A spare magazine is easy to carry, and honestly it balances the load on the front of my belt and is actually more comfortable. I've chosen that particular gun because I shoot much better with it than I do with single stack guns. I shoot single stack 9's better than pocket .380s, so my "backup" is a single-stack 9. I tried out a .357 revolver with a 2" barrel, couldn't hit crap with it, and my hand and forearm were tingling after 20 rounds.

Sounds like the beginning of a plan.

So through reasons having nothing to do with needing lots of ammo, my setup ends up being a normal sized 9mm with 30 rounds of ammunition. Does that make me any more prepared than the guy who does carry the 5-rd .357?

Depends on the skill level with the guy with the 357 and does he carry reloads?

There's no way to answer that. If we both are accurate, and both only manage to get off one shot, his one .357 may well save him faster than my one 9mm.

Depends on what is accomplished with that one shot.

But even that is unanswerable. There's always the guy who was dropped by a single round, and always the guy on meth who took a dozen rounds to the chest and still ran a mile before dropping.

And there is always the guy that is just that mean he refuses to stop. There is an answer, carry the most powerful gun you can conceal and shoot well. I carry a Glock 31C 357 Sig or a S&W 44 magnum with reloads and a BUG.

So there's my answer. Carry what you're comfortable with, and wear body armor everywhere

What someone chooses to be comfortable with based on ignorance or bad information is at best a bad decision. If you are not known to be armed (concealed) you do not need body armor. If you are made as being armed (body armor) I can pretty much guarantee that you will be shot in the head.

 

[briandg]

I don't like the idea of wearing body armor as an amateur. Do we want people to have a false sense of security? It will happen in many cases.

" I wear armor, carry a big gun, lots of magazines, speed holster, heck, I can't possibly lose!"

A guy in England bough plastic "sporting" armor and let his buddy fire a shotgun at it.

Cricket chest plates stop balls. Not bullets.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What someone chooses to be comfortable with based on ignorance or bad information is at best a bad decision.

Well, said - unfortunately, the gun world tends to have folks that favor that point of view. It seems to come about when your choice is not praised. Since, IMHO, your EDC gear is sometimes imbued with symbolic meaning of your skill and for men - manliness, it becomes a touchy issue.