How many rounds do you need (for self-defense)?

[Bongo Lewi]

Then let those that only need 9 continue to buy 1911's - free country but they are not for me. I don't want to carry three mags with me just in case. You can never have too much ammo; rather, you can run out and you are up the creek.

I can build them cheap and nice. The nicer ones I build can cost thousands in the aftermarket and may not even work as well or, at best, only work as well. I have some High-Points and I like the guns but don't like the single stack mags and yeah, they are a bit bulky. Too much time reloading at the range and too heavy but reliable and accurate for the money. It's a great first gun and one that is dependable enough to save your life when you don't want or have much to spend. With that said, if the Glock clones were readily available at the time, I wouldn't have purchased any. The Glock is a better platform and has tremendous parts availability. Then, there is the fun of shooting something you made and the process of making them is enjoyable. If they don't work right from the get-go, I have more fun solving issues than if they ran perfectly every time. Being challenged helps me learn and I can overcome pretty much every issue and help others with their builds.

Agree it's a matter of choice. More ammo is often better. I put together a half dozen P80s and a couple of GS9s. That was fun and interesting. I'm in a been there done that frame of mind about doing any more.

Just curious though. What scenario does the average armed civilian run across that requires 27 rounds? Just in case of what?

 

[Racer88]

Unless you wear a badge or serve in a combat role. If you dont, then 9 should do the trick. The average shooting incident among civilians involves two rounds.

What scenario does the average armed civilian run across that requires 27 rounds? Just in case of what?

If the chances of X happening are 1%.... But X happens to you... It's 100% for you.

I made this little video.

View: https://rumble.com/vs6qg5-no-mag-capacity-limits.html

 

[Bongo Lewi]

I don't think mag limits is the issue. It's certainly not mine. I don't care how many rounds somebody wants to carry. Nor should it be regulated. 100 round drum? Have at it! If were a bad guy I'd put my first two rounds in him and have seven left.

Capacity is one of those things that everybody wants but can't really explain why. The exception being a combat or duty weapon.

In my opinion, needing more than 9 is about as likely as surviving a horrific plane crash then as you run away from the burning wreckage you are hit by lightning and the rescue team finds the winning Powerball ticket in your pants pocket.

 

[Bobster]

Some say if you need more than 9, practice more

What scenario does the average armed civilian run across that requires 27 rounds? Just in case of what?

If were a bad guy I'd put my first two rounds in him and have seven left.

Capacity is one of those things that everybody wants but can't really explain why.

What if you need to cut down a tree?

Anyhow, what Racer said. Granted, one standard capacity 9mm mag will probably have enough rounds to take out a dozen thugs with well-aimed shots...

PS: with a .45 and one mag, you might have to get creative with your aim--ie: 1S2Ks

 

[FrankenGlock]

Agree it's a matter of choice. More ammo is often better. I put together a half dozen P80s and a couple of GS9s. That was fun and interesting. I'm in a been there done that frame of mind about doing any more.

Just curious though. What scenario does the average armed civilian run across that requires 27 rounds? Just in case of what?

I remember when I just started building. Half dozen - wish I would have stopped way back when.

Odds are one would need less than 3 so does that mean I should only carry that many? I mean, why even have anything more than a 10 round magazine. It’s because you never know what or who you will face.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

Odds are one would need less than 3 so does that mean I should only carry that many? I mean, why even have anything more than a 10 round magazine. It’s because you never know what or who you will face.

That's indeed true. I like Glocks but my most common EDC is a Hellcat and has been for a long time. I have the 13 and 15 round extended mags for it and sometimes carry them. But more often I just use the 10 rounder. Smaller, lighter. Now and then, if I can conceal it, I'll carry an extra mag. I only do that if I'm going someplace unfamiliar and the possibility of unfriendly welcome is realistic. I've spent enough time in domestic and foreign shitholes to have a grasp on assessing my risk.

When working and I needed to be heavy, I carried the gun I thought was most appropriate for the job. The usual suspects in full size duty pistols and the occasional subgun with a pistol. 1911, 2011, Sig, Beretta, HK... whatever.

The Hellcat does the job when I'm wearing shorts and a t-shirt. For less casual times I'm going to carry a 3 inch 1911 in 45 or a 2011 in 9mm either a Staccato CS or BUL SAS. Both of the latter hold twice the ammo of the 1911 but I really don't worry about it.

All that said, I'm perfectly comfortable with my ability to eliminate two or three threats with nine or perhaps ten rounds. Or one threat with less. But even if I had 15 or more rounds, I would always consider the possibility of being outgunned and thus retreat. Taking on a guy with a rifle for example, is stupid. You better hope he's incompetent or you are dead. I have no desire to die a vainglorious heroic death. I also haven't been in a shopping mall or any sort of academic institution since 1989.

 

[Racer88]

I don't think mag limits is the issue. It's certainly not mine. I don't care how many rounds somebody wants to carry. Nor should it be regulated. 100 round drum? Have at it! If were a bad guy I'd put my first two rounds in him and have seven left.

Capacity is one of those things that everybody wants but can't really explain why. The exception being a combat or duty weapon.

In my opinion, needing more than 9 is about as likely as surviving a horrific plane crash then as you run away from the burning wreckage you are hit by lightning and the rescue team finds the winning Powerball ticket in your pants pocket.

If I recall, it took 8 rounds from Eli Dicken to put the Indiana mall murderer down. Eight rounds IN the perp. One perp.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

If I recall, it took 8 rounds from Eli Dicken to put the Indiana mall murderer down. Eight rounds IN the perp. One perp.

The bad guys AR jammed after only a few rounds fired and Eli was 40 feet away. The perp did not return fire on Dickens because he was unskilled.

Dickens deserves a medal for bravery. It’s fortunate his accolades were not posthumous.

Dickens started firing and advanced on the perp, closing the distance between them. If he knew the perps gun was jammed that was the smart move. If he didn’t, he’s lucky he’s not dead.

One could also argue that firing on the perp kept him from clearing the jam. That’s possible but it also suggests the perp was unskilled.

The circumstances were what they were and I don’t want to cast any shade on Dickens bravery. But anybody who believes the positive outcome was anything more than luck has never been in a gunfight.

When I read about gun owners imagining themself in the same situation as Dickens, I wonder if they realize how easy it is to get killed if you take on an adversary with a rifle. A mediocre marksman with an AR can put five shots in an eight inch circle at 100 yards with iron sights. Or if not, just point and fill the air with lead.

More ammo in your pistol doesn’t hurt but it also will not save you. Thats my only point here. In most defensive scenarios you have a couple of seconds at best to draw and fire. Landing three rounds in the perp. Or he shoots or stabs you first. If you master the Mozambique drill you have the advantage. The reality is very few gun owners train that vigorously.

 

[Racer88]

The bad guys AR jammed after only a few rounds fired and Eli was 40 feet away. The perp did not return fire on Dickens because he was unskilled.

Dickens deserves a medal for bravery. It’s fortunate his accolades were not posthumous.

Dickens started firing and advanced on the perp, closing the distance between them. If he knew the perps gun was jammed that was the smart move. If he didn’t, he’s lucky he’s not dead.

One could also argue that firing on the perp kept him from clearing the jam. That’s possible but it also suggests the perp was unskilled.

The circumstances were what they were and I don’t want to cast any shade on Dickens bravery. But anybody who believes the positive outcome was anything more than luck has never been in a gunfight.

When I read about gun owners imagining themself in the same situation as Dickens, I wonder if they realize how easy it is to get killed if you take on an adversary with a rifle. A mediocre marksman with an AR can put five shots in an eight inch circle at 100 yards with iron sights. Or if not, just point and fill the air with lead.

More ammo in your pistol doesn’t hurt but it also will not save you. Thats my only point here. In most defensive scenarios you have a couple of seconds at best to draw and fire. Landing three rounds in the perp. Or he shoots or stabs you first. If you master the Mozambique drill you have the advantage. The reality is very few gun owners train that vigorously.

40 yards away, not feet. 8 out of 10 shots hit the target. Skill, not luck.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

40 yards away, not feet. 8 out of 10 shots hit the target. Skill, not luck.

Yes on the correction. That was the initial distance. Landing 8 rounds at 40 or 50 yards is not bad. Nor is it phenomenally great or unusual. But when you add duress to the situation, he did remarkably well from the stand point of staying on target.

But again... no one shooting back. That's not a trivial point. I'm not going to repeat again that the guy had balls to step in but he is also lucky. If the perp wasn't a moron who didnt know how to operate an AR or smart enough to seek cover while he cleared the jam, Dickens would be dead. Maybe a lot of other people too. It was a lack of skill on the part of the perp that drove the outcome.

We can agree skill (or the lack of it) is always a factor. So is luck.

It is established military doctrine that no plan survives contact with the enemy. You can translate that to defensive shooting quite easily. That philosophy goes back to von Moltke, Rommel, Patton, Montgomery, and others. There are hints of the same philosophy in Roman times. Rommel wrote that the plan brings you to battle, but once it begins, "you fight by ear and eye and tactical sense, like a duellist." Eisenhower said, "Plans are worthless, but planning is everything."

Point being, you can prepare for a situation, but once the shooting begins your wits keep you alive. Or the lack of wits on the part of your opponent. Tom Givens, who has been training pistol shooters (largely LEOs) for decades published this data:

It's consistent with other expert opinions and crime data on the typical armed assault. This is what the average Joe or Jane should be training for. Specifically, speed and shot placement. Not worrying about defending a food court full of people or being a hero. It's likely to be over in 60 seconds or less.

 

[Racer88]

In the context of the average or typical gun owner, Dicken's performance was a remarkable and admirable feat of skilled marksmanship.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

In the context of the average or typical gun owner, Dicken's performance was a remarkable and admirable feat of skilled marksmanship.

In that context, absolutely.

Where we may or may not agree is that the average schlub who buys a gun for self defense, even though he may have good intentions, should not get sucked into the glory of the citizen with a gun story. Tragically, they will likely end up dead. Or shoot a bystander.

I'll wrap this up by stating no kid grows up dreaming of being an accountant or working in a factory.

We all aspire to be heroes of some kind. The desire to be popular or liked or admired is a powerful emotion. And that sometimes carries forward to adulthood. That causes some people make serious errors in judgement. Some fall in love with the fantasy of a glorious death. Like how some crave celebrity. They believe it validates them. I've even seen this in otherwise very tough, highly trained people. Believe me, that disappears when and if the time comes that you are actually fighting for your life - and you survive.

A civilian's responsibility is to protect himself and his family. No one else. There are many ways to be a hero. Accomplishing that with a gun is the most likely way to fail. The odds are not good for the average person.

Bongo Zen: The gunfight you avoid is the gunfight you always win.

 

[Racer88]

Where we may or may not agree is that the average schlub who buys a gun for self defense, even though he may have good intentions, should not get sucked into the glory of the citizen with a gun story.!Tragically, they will likely end up dead. Or shoot a bystander.

Yet it happens infrequently... Citizens do better than LE when it comes to both innocent bystanders AND accuracy. BETTER.

I think the actual fantasy is progressives who fantasize about gun owners supposedly fantasizing about being heroes.

 

[Racer88]

Bongo Zen: The gunfight you avoid is the gunfight you always win.

Best block, no be there. - Mr. Miyagi

 

[Bongo Lewi]

Yet it happens infrequently... Citizens so better than LE when it comes to both innocent bystanders AND accuracy. BETTER.

I think the actual fantasy is progressives who fantasize about gun owners supposedly fantasizing about being heroes.

Nonsense. Read the wacked out shit people post on forums. That's how progressives formulate all their delusions. From reading the fantasies of other delusionals. They are all inmates in the same asylum.

Cops who use their weapon in the line of duty (most do not) aren't a good comparison to some guy with his EDC eating a Cinnabon in a mall food court. I'm not making excuses for incompetent cops. Most are no better trained than the average civilian. However, there's a reason why most of the recognized experts on gunfighting are either former cops or military. I trained with SWAT team cops who would take exception to your claim that civilians are by far more competent with firearms. It's bullshit.

 

[Racer88]

Nonsense. Read the wacked out shit people post on forums. That's how progressives formulate all their delusions. From reading the fantasies of other delusionals. They are all inmates in the same asylum.

Cops who use their weapon in the line of duty (most do not) aren't a good comparison to some guy with his EDC eating a Cinnabon in a mall food court. I'm not making excuses for incompetent cops. Most are no better trained than the average civilian. However, there's a reason why most of the recognized experts on gunfighting are either former cops or military. I trained with SWAT team cops who would take exception to your claim that civilians are by far more competent with firearms. It's bullshit.

I don't care what they write. I care about what they do... And the data that proves they do better than LE.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

That's a clever twist. You can't depend on LE to protect you. That's not the issue here. Protect yourself and your family. It's about the dumb fuck who thinks he's a warrior. Pulp fiction. As they say today ... FAFO.

 

[Racer88]

exception to your claim that civilians are by far more competent with firearms. It's bullshit.

Look it up.

 

[Racer88]

Read the wacked out shit people post on forums

I've been on gun forums for about 30 years. It's extremely rare to see that. And when they do... They get shouted down quickly by the majority sane people.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

View: https://youtu.be/47y5bo8wtqM?si=GysHDjSbJRODrrQA&t=4