Why the hypocrisy on handgun capacity?

[Sigkid79]

I’ve seen critics jump on semi-auto concealed carry firearms that hold anywhere from 7-10 rounds. Apparently this is not enough to handle a threat despite the fact that 3 shots are what it usually takes to handle a self defense situation according to FBI stats. Reading some posts here, you’d think that anything less than a full-size pistol that holds 15+ rounds is inadequate.

My 2 concealed carry firearms are a 10-round Glock 43x, and a 12-round Sig Sauer P365x. When the conversation of the 43x comes up, the first thing I hear is , “have you picked up the Shield Arms 15-round mag yet?”. My response is “no”. Reason being?…… It’s a concealed carry that is lightweight and I want to keep it that way. 5 more rounds will just add more weight to the firearm, plus 10-rounds is sufficient enough to handle any self defense situation that I may encounter. This is a defense weapon. Not a battle weapon.

Why dont I see the same criticism when it comes to revolvers? The majority of revolvers that carry adequate self defense rounds are limited to 5-6 rounds. Yet I see nothing but praise for revolvers as concealed carry self defense weapons. Not only do they hold much less rounds, but they’re also more difficult to reload. Especially during a high stress situation.

Now I have nothing against revolvers. I’m just perplexed to the criticism that semi auto’s with low round capacity’s receive vs the extremely low capacity of that of revolvers.

 

[tangolima]

Why? Because you talk to them.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[TunnelRat]

Actually I see the same criticism leveraged about revolvers, in fact it seems one of the main criticisms of revolvers. That being said I think there are some advantages to revolvers as opposed to semiautomatics.

If you feel adequately armed then keep doing as you want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[armoredman]

If you feel good about it, then go for it. I always advocate carrying a spare mag for semi autos simply because of the rare possibility of a mag failure, but that is also quite rare in good quality well maintained sidearms. If you feel adequately defended with 10+1 in your Glock, who is anyone else to tell you different?

 

[eflyguy]

I look at it like the camera philosophy - the one you have with you is always better than the fancy rig you aren't lugging around.

6+1 is enough (EDC is first gen G43) for me. Never needed it, but it's aways there.

 

[stinkeypete]

Marketing, economics, profit.

Imagine you make and sell a product that lasts over 100 years.
Imagine that the most desired of your products, the halo model, is well over 100 years old.

Who would not walk miles for a genuine period Colt Peacemaker?
The 1911 was made… when? How is a k-38 masterpiece different from any .38 today, except it’s better?

Well, “more is better” to most consumers. And the .357 magnum and .44 magnum… yes, I think they are better in general than .38 and 44-40. But a S&W or Python from the 60’s… still penultimate. Maybe you think a Korth edges them out, but how many can they sell?

Well, .22, .357, .45, .44 magnum… a pistolero has the foundations of a collection right there. Any more power and it’s getting extreme to hold, and you have small, medium and large covered.

So… you need the Ford vs Chevy argument among consumers. Semi auto vs. revolver. Now Glock comes along and says “cut cost of production? Hold my bier! And all that effort making good triggers? Bah! Convince consumers that “breaks like glass” is for grandpa and your trigger, which feels like a stick through a mud hole, is the best! No need for expensive parts, and you can injection mold a lot of it! G-17, done!”

Well, what do you do when everyone has a G-17? I guess you convince a bunch of LEO agencies they need .40s. Okay, all those perfectly functional G-17s go on the used market and you sell .40s. Now what?

Convince them it’s okay to go back to 9mm, but now a smaller lighter gun. Sell them all G-19s. Wait, no… when you change the mold for 17 grips, put in finger grooves. In any event, convince people what they had needs updated. The old guns will still run fine for another 100 years, but you must sell more product.

Wait! Single stack! Thin and light! 8 rounds is enough! Oops, revolvers.

No, no! Now we can pack 15 rounds in! 16, 17, 19… wait! What happened to thin and light? May as well sell them ar-15s 30 round pistols! “Yeah! With an ‘arm brace’ because that sure isn’t looking like a pistol you can shoot one handed as God intended…”

“What if we made some sawed off shotguns and called them pistols?”

“Great point, Sam! We could make a movie where these things throw bad guys around like they were hit by a bull moose.”

“Speaking of movies, I know these fellas that want to make a TV show about zombies and the sherif needs a gun.”

“Hah! Ridiculous! They may as well have him carry an old Python!”

“Ha ha ha ha ha”, all laughed. Except the guy from Colt.

The guy from Beretta was busy sketching pictures of new clothes to try and sell, and thinking about a new clay pigeon game.

“Hey, you know.. I shot a revolver the other day at some zombie targets we sell. The trigger was awesome! Awesome!”

“Maybe we could make some good triggers.”

“As good as a 1911?”

“Don’t be silly kid. That’s impossible.”

 

[wild cat mccane]

Welp...until you could buy your Glock 43 and Sig P365, were there that many in that size regardless of capacity that didn't come with super craptackular triggers?

No.

My P365 trigger is pretty similar to my Q5 and PDP. Those are said to have the best triggers. Reset is shorter than a VP9. Break is Walther like.

Then came along those options. Then came along those options in the same size with more.

What's to be annoyed about?

 

[MarkCO]

Choice is okay. Don't worry about it. Pick what you want, let other pick what they want.

 

[OldMarksman]

....despite the fact that 3 shots are what it usually takes to handle a self defense situation according to FBI stats.

I have never seen "FBI stats" that support that alleged "fact".

It may be true, but no one in his right mind would rely on "what is usually takes" to do anything.

 

[wild cat mccane]

To be honest, I've never met someone needing a concealed carry gun at all? But that comment tends to close threads.

oops.

 

[OldMarksman]

To be honest, I've never met someone needing a concealed carry gun at all?

What an individual may or may not have seen or experienced is not a meaningful factor in risk management.

 

[TunnelRat]

It may be true, but no one in his right mind would rely on "what is usually takes" to do anything.

When you say anything, how far are you willing to take that? When I do landscaping in my yard it usually only takes a wheelbarrow. Now I could rent a front loader, but I generally just use a wheelbarrow. Does that mean I’m not in my right mind?

I carry a midsized pistol plus a spare magazine. I know people that carry multiple firearms and multiple magazines for those firearms. I don’t consider them out of their mind and I don’t believe they consider me out I their mind. I’m not sure why we need to judge people in this arena.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TunnelRat]

What an individual may or may not have seen or experienced is not a meaningful factor in risk management.

Risk assessment generally involves determining the potential consequences of that risk coming to fruition and the probability of that risk.

I haven’t experienced an earthquake as I don’t live in an area that receives earthquakes with the regularity of someone who lives in say CA. While I get that you’re saying an individual not experiencing an event doesn’t mean that event can’t happen, it absolutely can speak to the probability of that event. I don’t plan for an earthquake to the same level as I do a number of other natural phenomena that are far more common in my area, probability is part of that. By the same token, while I understand carrying a firearm to offset the potential risk of not carrying one (and the burden of doing so isn’t great for me personally), I can understand someone performing a risk assessment and coming to the conclusion that he or she doesn’t need to carry or only “needs” to carry X number of rounds.

In another example, I’ve never had to shoot at someone wearing body armor, but it certainly has happened. I know people that as a consequence of that risk have rifles legally stored in their vehicles. Am I remiss for not doing the same if I determine my risk profile is different than theirs? It seems to me everyone performs his or her own risk assessment. Some people feel the need to apply their own risk assessment to others. What is prudent to one person may seem excessive or woefully inadequate to someone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[44 AMP]

What an individual may or may not have seen or experienced is not a meaningful factor in risk management.

I disagree,sort of...

What an individual may or may not have seen or experienced IS a meaningful factor in risk management, when it's my risk and the individual is ME!

While my personal life experiences (or lack of same) might not be a meaningful factor in creating a program of risk management for the general public, or other people specifically, its a big deal in my life, because, when you come down to it, it doesn't matter a lot what various "experts" say or statistics seem to indicate. No one else is as "expert' about my life and my situation as I am. And statistics are always based on a range of data, and the "findings and conclusions" based on statistics and studied which may, or may not include the single point where MY life is.

Our society has trained the majority of people to believe "more is better" and while true about some things, it is not true about everything.

 

[wild cat mccane]

I love loading mags~no one ever.

 

[jmr40]

despite the fact that 3 shots are what it usually takes to handle a self defense situation according to FBI stats.

If 3 is average then that means that 1/2 of all shootings require more than 3. And no one has ever survived a gunfight and walked away saying, "If I'd only had fewer rounds in my gun."

And I question the validity of the 3 shot average. That stat may have been relevant 25-30 years ago, but I don't believe it today.

I may never need more than the 5-6 rounds in a revolver, but there is no downside to me choosing a semi holding 10-17 rounds. I've had small 5 shot 38 and 357 revolvers and full size 3-4" 357 mag revolvers holding 6 rounds

But I can get a 9mm semi-auto that is more compact than a 5 shot 38 that holds 10 shots. My 17 shot Sig M17 Compact is smaller and lighter than a typical 4" 357 mag revolver. And I shoot the semi's more accurately.

Was an easy decision to choose the semi's.

 

[Rob228]

Its because everyone has a different opinion based on their experiences and views and level of training. I typically carry a full sized 15+1 pistol with an RMR, BUT I don't feel less 'safe' carrying a Sig 938. Stopped carrying a revolver after carrying one in the back of my cycling jersey for a while and all of a sudden the lithium grease on the inside solidified and it stopped working. But not everyone who carries a revolver will subject it to that much sweat. I also could not shoot a J-frame well enough past 10 yards to feel confident with it.

 

[OldMarksman]

I haven’t experienced an earthquake as I don’t live in an area that receives earthquakes with the regularity of someone who lives in say CA.

Not relevant earthquakes occur where there are faults. the new arrival who has never frlt one is at no less risk of one occurring today than a long term resident.

While I get that you’re saying an individual not experiencing an event doesn’t mean that event can’t happen, it absolutely can speak to the probability of that event.

How could it? Whether an individual has witnessed or experienced violent crime can tell us nothing about the per capita likelihood of occurrence.

We can assess our risk of earthquakes, hurricanes, flood, forest fires, or crime, but we will not use what we have or have not personally seen to do so.

 

[totaldla]

I don't get excited by the fads unless I see something that truly improves the state of handguns - and I haven't seen that since the introduction of the Glock.
I carry what I carry because I'm confident with what I carry. Ammo capacity isn't very important to me.

 

[TunnelRat]

Not relevant earthquakes occur where there are faults. the new arrival who has never frlt one is at no less risk of one occurring today than a long term resident.
How could it? Whether an individual has witnessed or experienced violent crime can tell us nothing about the per capita likelihood of occurrence.

We can assess our risk of earthquakes, hurricanes, flood, forest fires, or crime, but we will not use what we have or have not personally seen to do so.

There are faults in many locations, often where people don’t realize. The frequency of those events is certainly less in certain locations and that leads people to be oblivious to their presence. That said if you dislike that analogy, pick a natural disaster of your choice (I think you missed the forest for the trees).

My undergraduate degree was in statistics because I was planning to be an actuary. As part of this I took courses on survival analysis where I calculated hazard rates for healthcare and industrial settings using different distributions. Then my Master’s degree involved decision support where I took courses on contingency planning for disasters, natural and otherwise. I mention this because I have some experience with risk assessment.

To assess risk you look at data. As I said before, there is certainly a possibility of blinding yourself to a risk by looking at only your personal experience (which is a very limited set of data). At the same time, whether it’s violent crime, wildfires, etc there are statistical differences in risk that vary by location and environment. That’s factual. Saying that personal experience has no bearing in risk at all could lead you to potentially ignore those differences if a person has a better understanding of their local risk profile than simply analyzing global data that may hide local trends. There’s a balance here that I think you’re ignoring.

The statistical likelihood of using a firearm in self defense is notably lower than a number of risks we all face on a daily basis. I’m not telling someone to not prepare, I’m trying to get across that a risk assessment performed by one person may well differ from another person, and not for unfounded reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk