"How Much Capacity Is Enough For Private Citizen Gunfights? (ASP Compilation)" video and POLL

imbue said:

these are nice shooting guns..

the stock grips are just ok but, for a few dollars more, LOK make them grip and pop.

Big brother here- View attachment 523680

Click to expand...

Ohh baby...lol

Chris.lorine said:

This is not the wild west. Hopefully, almost everyone reading this will never have to draw their firearm to protect their lives. Additionally, it is my sincere hope that everyone who carries a firearm has taken the appropriate courses on the law and their responsibilities regarding the use of a firearm in self-defense and they have kept their shooting proficiency up with weekly practice.

Personally, I would be scared more of an "armed citizen" who starts shooting in a public area to "defend" themselves and/or their family. I say this because I see people from all walks of life come to the range every week who have never shot a firearm before and who have recently purchased it to "defend" themselves. As an RSO, I try to assist them in the safety aspects and the basic use of their firearm along with how to hold, load, aim, and shoot.

The biggest problem I see is that very few new firearm owners choose to become proficient with their firearms. Fewer take the CCW courses that provide basic information as to the laws and responsibilities of the owner of a firearm. Even fewer have purchased a safe, secure place to store their firearms at home. These reasons are what concern me when an "armed citizen" draws their weapon.

Shooting skills diminish over time and thus need to be kept sharp with practice. Knowing the law and how to handle yourself in a self-defense situation has to be taught and kept current.

Now, to answer the question that started this string: I carry a full magazine and a spare. This enables me to have a statistically sufficient amount of ammo for more than 90% of "self-defense" situations.

Click to expand...

Arizona doesn't require a CCW license. As an RSO, being behind 'The Firing Line' observing the shooters, right? You see unsafe handling of firearms that exposes inexperience. You don't just stand there and let it continue. I'll say out front that I don't live in the urban areas. I was only born there. Other than 2 stints in the military. All of my shooting is done at outdoor ranges or miles away from any dwelling out in the desert here in SE Arizona. I've been shooting for well over 50yrs. It's always been about 'Safety First'.

That old saying, 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink'. On a shooting range, indoor or outdoor range doesn't matter. Any managed range will put an immediate stop to unsafe practices. I'm not against an RSO observing a shooter for safe practices. If they don't demonstrate that, offer courses with membership. It's the Ranges responsibility to insure all the shooters are safe.

Back on topic, and yes it's related to safety. IMO most of the people on these online forums are not beginners. We know or should know the drill by now. What we carry, how we carry and the mags used. The premise of the topic and 'The Civilian Gunfight' part isn't to be ignored. It just shouldn't be so controversial. We/I don't go looking for a fight. A few say we don't live in the wild west. That's wrong-headed thinking. Just look at all the violent crime of the perps using guns to commit their violence. Is it the guns' fault? NO way, it's the person's fault/choice to do violent acts on civilians. And thug on thug violence is the most often we see. Now it's worse than the wild west. Criminals are seldom punished, even for violence. So, us civilians must be ready, willing and trained to take care of ourselves. It would be fantastic if we didn't have to live like this. But, this is 'Our Reality'. When I carry (always) 15-17 locked & loaded w/2 spares. Ohhh, and lets not forget we have a few million 'new' illegal aliens roaming around w/at least another 1-2 million gang bangers. Whatcha gonna do? It's up to you. Be legal, be safe and survive.

Although unscientific, I found the poll results interesting and I wondered how different they would be among a different shooting community, namely 1911 aficionados. So, I shamelessly stole @Sheepdogged question/thread idea and posted it over at the 1911Forum.

The poll started several days later, but there are enough votes now to kind of compare. As expected, people vote with in line with what they currently carry. I did try to reword the question to "in the gun" with only limited success. Not surprisingly, the single stack shooters are more comfortable with 8, 9, and 10 rounds, but there were clearly some double-stack folks too. Here are the results over there, to date:

I also posted a screen shot of the results from Sig Talk over there.

BAC said:

[snip]
The real world terminal performance between common handgun calibers is within margin of error and has been for a couple decades when accounting for good quality defensive ammo;
[snip]

Click to expand...

My intent was not to kick-off a cartridge war, but rather to contrast the attitude.

The terminal difference between handgun cartridges is within the margin of error as compared to a rifle. That's demonstrably true.

I've never been sold on the idea of "just as powerful" when the "cheap" ammo used to justify the economy advantage doesn't even reach 300 ft-lbs ME subsonic compared to 357 Sig at nearly 600 ft-lbs ME supersonic. Twice is not margin of error, unless one is very error prone. Sure, one could choose to compare the +P+PP+P+ non-SAAMI version that is just under 500 ft-lbs ME, but those are not economical and many handguns are incapable of handling them long-term.

Like most bureaucracy decisions, there are a lot of factors entering into it. Quality and effectiveness are not necessarily high priority. Economy is a huge factor, which was a big reason Texas DPS gave up the 357 Sigs they preferred for 9mm. Capacity is another factor, but the difference between 9mm and 40S&W/357Sig is not the same as the difference between single stack and double stack magazines.

Terminal performance, or effectiveness, is harder to compare. Given the bullets are designed to achieve the FBI ideal penetration in gel blocks based on expected velocity for a given load, energy is not directly accounted for. There is data from real world shoots. The 9mm is effective in most cases, but cartridges like 38 Super, 357 Sig, and 357 Mag are more effective in more cases.

I kind of look at it as an allowance for margin of error (not to steal your term). A 22LR can kill nearly instantly with the exactly correct placement, but the margin for achieving this is very narrow. As we move up the chain from 32 ACP to 380ACP to 9mm, the area for a debilitating hit increases. Of course, there is an upper limit. Obviously, a 44 Mag hit on the pinky is not debilitating. However, there are areas where a 9mm hit will be serious, but not debilitating while a hit from a 44 Mag will incapacitate. I don't consider a 44 Mag practical, but this is just to illustrate the point.

In both forums, there were a few comments asserting a more powerful cartridge meant they felt less of a need to carry as many rounds. I think in this forum someone posted they felt good with ~10 of 357 Sig or 10mm but wanted more than 15 rounds of 9mm.

Somebody asked for a link to a video of the gunfight that will be just like the gunfight they're going to have. Well, that would be nice. The reality is we can't be prepared for everything, so we have to assess risk for ourselves. There are some fights where I'd want nothing less than 357 Sig or 10mm and others where I'd happily give up muzzle energy for more capacity. I won't know in advance which is which.

Fair point re: caliber wars. To be clear, when I say common handgun rounds, I mean just that. There are some outlier calibers that technically perform better on average in gel tests but overall real world effectiveness is far harder to quantify since they account for such low numbers of actual uses. Speaking from my professional experience working in a big city, I don't see any meaningful difference between the GSW victim outcomes from any handgun caliber... but in over a decade I've also never once seen someone take a .357 Sig or 10mm full giddy-up Buffalo Bore. Stats my dept collects bear out that much too; the differences we see in effectiveness are in rifle vs pistol and in number of thoracic hits vs non-thoracic hits. When we had already decided to replace our M&P's with P320's and were determining whether to stay with .40 or move to 9, this was something that came up several times. If we didn't see real world, meaningful differences between the rounds, why not move to one that gave slightly more capacity and was slightly easier to shoot? Duty ammo costs aside since they all more or less cost the same, training ammo for 9mm is just cheaper than .40, so we could buy a lot more of it and shoot a lot more of it.

Back on the topic itself for how much capacity we'd feel is "enough", reading the replies over on the other forum is pretty revealing and more or less lines up with responses seen here on this forum. Poll results and discussion responses don't seem dependent at all on caliber but on magazine capacity and number. The reduced total capacity seems to be seen as a given (makes sense, 1911 forum focusing on .45 1911s) so they're voting more on 1 vs 2 vs sometimes 3 mags. The responses seem along the lines of "does this video make you want to carry spare mag(s) or reconsider gun ref: capacity".

I carry whatever is in the gun plus one spare mag. The only exception is when I carry a Glock 36, and then I will sometimes have two spare magazines. {Revolver capacity semi auto.}
On vacation in Florida now, have been toting a Sig 239 with one extra 10 rounder on my belt. I'm okay with that.

BAC said:

[snip]
overall real world effectiveness is far harder to quantify since they account for such low numbers of actual uses.
[snip]

...reading the replies over on the other forum is pretty revealing and more or less lines up with responses seen here on this forum.
[snip]

Click to expand...

Agreed. That's why I really liked the various "stopping power" books by Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow. While the books themselves generated debate and some controversy, they supposedly looked at over 5000 real world defensive shoots with handguns. They tried to quantify results, but the number of variables is daunting. The size of the perp, their clothing, their angle to the shot, their determination (e.g. ML Platt in Miami shootout continued to fight long after he received fatal bullet wound), distance, shot placement. They focused on measuring results with the implied assumption all other variables were equal or at least counter-balancing.

Certainly training budget is a legitimate factor in a decision. Even improving qualification scores by reducing felt recoil is a legitimate consideration provided effectiveness remains within certain limits. I am less persuaded by the "follow the bouncing ball" of FBI recommendations as they changed over and over and over again. This is especially true in light of what we've learned recently about the FBI.

As civilians, we may, or may not, be cost sensitive. Provided we are comfortable and proficient, we are probably less concerned with others' ability to shoot our gun well.

Agreed, the emphasis in both communities seems to be on training and proficiency, not caliber, and then the number of magazines.

Personally, I think program compliance is the most important consideration. That super hot cartridge or slick 53 round 30 Super semi-auto with 7 triple stack magazines won't do anyone any good if the 15# rig is left on the dresser at home.