TexasCHLforum.com

Jason, what's your best time? Don't be modest. I know you're fast.

- Jim

I can honestly say that I do not know my splits well enough to publish them.

I can say that I have held a timer for more than one moderator on this board (about five of them actually if you count past and present) that have no problem shooting 0.2-0.3 second accurate shots at a significant distance. The first shot coming in at or a little over 1 second from concealment.

Jason

Recognizing my basic ignorance, I've held off on this thread so far. There have been many interesting comments and arguments put forth. So now I'm figuring 'What the heck?', I can put my 2 cents in I guess.

1) I'm no authority of any kind on combat.

2) The needs of LEO's are vastly different than those of non-LEO's, for reasons that are both obvious and too numerous to list.

3) From what I've read, most non-LEO instances of defensive gun use involve relatively few shots fired. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule.

4) My carry guns range from a Colt Commander holding 8+1 rounds of 45ACP to a Ruger SP101 holding 5 rounds of 38 spl +P. I seldom if ever carry a spare mag or speedloader. Once in a great while, my Kel-tec P32 with 7+1 rounds of 32ACP is all that will work with what I might be wearing.

5) I figure that having any of these guns with me puts me in about a 100 times better position, in the event of a criminal assault, than the approx. 99% of adults who go about their daily lives carrying nothing more than a cell phone. To make this advantage real, I make it a point to carry anywhere and at any time that I legally can.

In my view, situational awareness, judgement, and shot placement (if it comes to that) are far more important to the non-LEO than magazine capacity.

Naturally, the above is intended to apply to being out and about on the streets of America, not Mogadishu, or even someplace like Nuevo Laredo.

And realistically, if the potential threat involves organized drug gangs or guerilla fighters armed with machine guns, having a hi-cap vs. a "low-cap" handgun isn't going to make any difference. If I have my choice, I'll ride around those places in a Bradley.

No man in combat has ever complained they had to much ammo, and no man in combat has complained his weapon was to powerful.

Magazine capacity is an asset IF you need it. Most likey you won't, but there have been cases where the shooter winchestered their weapon and the attacker was still a-going.

Handguns are not super stoppers. In fact, they are poor ones compaired to rifles or shotguns. Like I say in CHL classes, "Stopping power starts with the letter R and ends with S. That is Rifle and Shotgun. Notice the letter H, as in handgun, is not in between."

There is a good chance just the presence of a gun will stop the attack. There is a good chance just a few rounds will stop the attack. But sometimes even that is not enough.

As Scotty would say, "its better to have and not need, than to need and not have".

Good to see you back DS!

Hope you'll hang around and participate.

Deaf Smith wrote: No man in combat has ever complained they had to much ammo, and no man in combat has complained his weapon was to powerful.

1) Unless they were exhausted from dragging it all around.

2) If I'm going into combat, give me a Bradley, or maybe an Abrahms. If I'm going to the quickie mart, most of the time an SP101 seems like plenty to me.

Deaf Smith wrote: Magazine capacity is an asset IF you need it. Most likey you won't, but there have been cases where the shooter winchestered their weapon and the attacker was still a-going.

Sure. But for a non-LEO, just how often do these cases (where a lot of ammo is needed) turn up? From what I can tell, very rarely.

How much ammo did Joe Horn need?

How much ammo did the guy in DFW who whacked two BG's in the space of a couple of weeks need?

When was the last time we can point to where a non-LEO got into an extended gunfight where they either shot off more than a mag's worth of ammo or went winchester?

Let's face it, the chance of being involved in any sort of criminal attack where a gun is needed is pretty small. To me, the chance of being involved in a situation where I'd need a ton and a half of ammo is miniscule.

I haven't run the stats or anything, but I would guess that a non-LEO is literally more likely to be hit by lightening (which happens to a hundred or so Americans each year, IIRC) than they are to need more than a few rounds of ammo. So if we are going to prioritize, I would put donning a Faraday Cage before going outdoors on a cloudy day ahead of carrying a hi-cap pistol and a couple of spare mags.

I know that we sometimes enjoy kicking these scenarios around, but I like to keep both feet planted in the real world while I'm doing it. I guess that makes me the killjoy here, but what the heck.

Deaf Smith wrote: There is a good chance just the presence of a gun will stop the attack. There is a good chance just a few rounds will stop the attack. But sometimes even that is not enough.

As Scotty would say, "its better to have and not need, than to need and not have".

I never saw Scotty dragging around a backpack full of ammo or heavy weapons. A phaser (i.e. handgun) and a communicator (read: "cell phone") was usually enough for him.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I never saw Scotty dragging around a backpack full of ammo or heavy weapons. A phaser (i.e. handgun) and a communicator (read: "cell phone") was usually enough for him.

Phasers also unerringly hit targets dozens of yards away when fired from the hip, and disentegrate things the size of bulldozers. Even .500 Mag doesn't pack that much thump.

Besides, with the communicator he could call to be beamed out of a bad situation immediately.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But for a non-LEO, just how often do these cases (where a lot of ammo is needed) turn up? From what I can tell, very rarely.

Well, for my two cents worth, I would turn that around and ask how often the case of needing a firearm at all shows up. That is also, fortunately, exceedingly rare.

But Frankie and others have a point. A CHL has very different tactical needs and expectations than an LEO. There is a belief in LEO firearms training that more ammo is good. After all, the person who shoots first MIGHT be the winner of the gun fight, but the odds are that the person firing the LAST shot at the end IS the winner.

Cops are much more likely to need extra ammo. Their job makes it likely, and most of them switched to semi's because of the ammo supply question. When I carried a revolver on duty, I had a total of 24 rounds with me (six in the cylinder, six in belt loops, twelve in speedloaders). When we switched to Glocks, I had 46 rounds in three magazines.

But then you have to ask about the officers that choose to carry 1911's or similar pistols. Carrying that all last week, I was back to 24 rounds of ammo in the three magazines.

So, my opinion is that this is an individual choice. You do your own threat analysis and decide what makes you comfortable. Some people feel a 5 shot revolver is all they will need. Some carry a semi with two magazines. Some carry more than one weapon. All are good and hopefully, if they ever need it, all will be proven to have enough firepower when needed.

seamusTX wrote:I am going to address one of Mr. Suarez's points: availability. I keep boxes of ammo in my home and car, plenty for any eventuality short of war.

If you are caught in a disaster like a hurricane, stores will not be open for business and possibly will be looted.

- Jim

Well why 5 shots? Why not two? Why not just one? I mean think about this.

A 10 shot light weight auto is not a 'backpack' of ammo. Plenty of picks like Kahr, Glock, Kel-Tec, Ruger (well I hope their .380 becomes a 9mm soon, like the Kel-Tec P9), and even such as the wonderful SIG P225 you can get cheep (and almost new) from CDNN. As I posted, handguns are not good stoppers, and the hit rate in shootings is not high. That makes 5 shot pistols iffy (and in classes I tell them derringers are 'good guns for your opponent to have'.)

Yes I do have a centennial Smith .38 I carry alot, along with the Glock 27. But I reserve the .38 for situations I just can't carry anything else (like jogigin in the park.) And I have a 640, .357 version, that is the pratice gun along with a Smith 63 .22 lr., and I shoot those two alot just to maximize my ability with the snub. Cause with just 5 shots from a hard to shoot weapon, you have better be good!

As for combat, oh yea, someone trying to kill you, yea you are in combat. Unlimted warfare to be exact. You are fighting for your life and I assure you, you will do anything to stay alive.

And the Scotty I'm talking about is not Star Trek Scotty. He was military.

Frankie wrote:

Sure. But for a non-LEO, just how often do these cases (where a lot of ammo is needed) turn up? From what I can tell, very rarely.

And... if that “very rare� circumstance happened to YOU, would you not be glad you had a little extra ammo?

How much ammo did Joe Horn need?
How much ammo did the guy in DFW who whacked two BG's in the space of a couple of weeks need?

Uhmmmm…..both of these men used “shotguns� IIRC, very different in terms of stopping power and likelihood of getting a hit.

Let's face it, the chance of being involved in any sort of criminal attack where a gun is needed is pretty small.

Thankfully, this is true for most of us.

To me, the chance of being involved in a situation where I'd need a ton and a half of ammo is miniscule.

I don’t believe Deaf Smith advocated carrying a “ton and a half� of ammo either. Some folks are simply more comfortable carrying something in excess of 6-7 rounds.

I haven't run the stats or anything, but I would guess that a non-LEO is literally more likely to be hit by lightening (which happens to a hundred or so Americans each year, IIRC) than they are to need more than a few rounds of ammo. So if we are going to prioritize, I would put donning a Faraday Cage before going outdoors on a cloudy day ahead of carrying a hi-cap pistol and a couple of spare mags.

If you want to further “prioritize� you might consider walking everywhere you go. Your chances of being seriously injured or killed in a car accident are much greater than ever being in a defensive situation that requires you use your firearm.

I know that we sometimes enjoy kicking these scenarios around, but I like to keep both feet planted in the real world while I'm doing it. I guess that makes me the killjoy here, but what the heck.

And we do so appreciate that!


Bottom line is: Carry whatever amount of ammunition that makes sense for your self defense plan and encourage others to do the same. We should not be critical or overly analytical of others choices… especially if unsolicited.

“Statistics� and “probability� have their place… but if being “wrong� could cost you your life…..then I suggest you decide for yourself what the risks might be… and not rely upon an internet consensus.

[b]Frankie wrote:[/b] wrote: I know that we sometimes enjoy kicking these scenarios around, but I like to keep both feet planted in the real world while I'm doing it. I guess that makes me the killjoy here, but what the heck.

I missed this earlier. Something is dreadfully wrong. This statement could not possibly have been written by the Frankie that frequents this forum. Must have been a hacker.

Where is Frankie?

I am concerned!

Anygunanywhere

Deaf Smith wrote: Well why 5 shots? Why not two? Why not just one? I mean think about this.

Nothing magic about 5 shots. It's just what the gun holds.

A better question might be, how many non-LEO defensive shootings in a given year involve expending more than 5 shots? Or 10? Or 2? Or how often did the defender winchester and get blown away? That would be useful and informative information that would give us a real world context to make judgements with.

I mean, we can woulda, shoulda, coulda forever without developing any useful knowledge or insight whatsoever. It's a given that anything can happen. So what? Should we wear body armor when leaving the house, or even while at home, "just in case?"

Remember, around 60 people a year are killed by being hit by lightning.

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm

Yet I see people all over the place walking around in bad weather without bothering to shelter themselves inside of Faraday Cages.

And I fully recognize that the needs of LEO's, soldiers, Pan-Tex security guards, etc. are very different. I'm talking about CHLs here.

Deaf Smith wrote: As for combat, oh yea, someone trying to kill you, yea you are in combat. Unlimted warfare to be exact. You are fighting for your life and I assure you, you will do anything to stay alive.

I think there is both a qualitative and a quantitative difference between being on patrol in Sadr City, crash landing a Blackhawk in Mogadishu, and making a run to the local quickie mart here in America. Attempting to blur the substantial differences by catagorizing both as "combat" is like blurring the differences between "meat by products" and "filet mignon" by catagorizing both as simply "food".

When I go out and about, I do not do so with the idea or feeling that I am heading into combat.

It's true that some form of combat may occur on the quickie mart run, but both the nature and the likelihood of the threat is vastly different than that faced by a soldier "headed into combat."

So the choices and tradeoffs in terms of equipment needed would reasonably be expected to be very different as well.

flintknapper wrote: Frankie wrote:

Sure. But for a non-LEO, just how often do these cases (where a lot of ammo is needed) turn up? From what I can tell, very rarely.

And... if that “very rare� circumstance happened to YOU, would you not be glad you had a little extra ammo?

Sure. And if it never happened, and the mag with the extra ammo in it chewed its way through the pockets of a $50 pair of pants, I'm out 50 bucks, right?

flintknapper wrote: I don’t believe Deaf Smith advocated carrying a “ton and a half� of ammo either. Some folks are simply more comfortable carrying something in excess of 6-7 rounds.

Hey, people can carry what they want. It's fine by me.

But I thought the point of this thread was to explore what people should consider that they need.

flintknapper wrote:

I haven't run the stats or anything, but I would guess that a non-LEO is literally more likely to be hit by lightening (which happens to a hundred or so Americans each year, IIRC) than they are to need more than a few rounds of ammo. So if we are going to prioritize, I would put donning a Faraday Cage before going outdoors on a cloudy day ahead of carrying a hi-cap pistol and a couple of spare mags.

If you want to further “prioritize� you might consider walking everywhere you go. Your chances of being seriously injured or killed in a car accident are much greater than ever being in a defensive situation that requires you use your firearm.

Good example. It makes my point. Here we are driving all over the place, not using Faraday Cages, etc., and at the same time we are preparing for something that might happen to 10 or 20 people a year out of 300 million.

flintknapper wrote: “Statistics� and “probability� have their place… but if being “wrong� could cost you your life…..then I suggest you decide for yourself what the risks might be… and not rely upon an internet consensus.

But then, why are we reading this and posting to it?

Frankie wrote:

Nothing magic about 5 shots. It's just what the gun holds.

Nothing magic about 13 either, it’s just what my gun holds…no problem right?

A better question might be, how many non-LEO defensive shootings in a given year involve expending more than 5 shots? Or 10? Or 2? Or how often did the defender winchester and get blown away? That would be useful and informative information that would give us a real world context to make judgements with.

Indeed it would, do you have any?

Remember, around 60 people a year are killed by being hit by lightning.
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm

I forget…..why are we supposed to remember this?

Also, the figure you give represents persons who were “killed� (a much smaller number than people who were “STRUCK�, which is your main concern.

According to Storm Data, a National Weather Service publication, over the last 30 years the U.S. has averaged 62 reported lightning fatalities per year. Due to under reporting, the figures are more realistically at least 70 deaths per year. Only about 10% of people who are struck by lightning are killed, leaving 90% with various degrees of disability.

ODDS OF BECOMING A LIGHTNING VICTIM
U.S. 2000 Census population 280,000,000

Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (reported deaths + injuries) 1/700,000
Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (estimated total deaths + injuries) 1/400,000
Odds of being struck in your lifetime (Est. 80 years) 1/5000
Odds you will be affected by someone being struck (Ten people affected for every one struck) 1/500
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlin ... un99_1.htm

The National Weather Service publication Storm Data recorded 3,239 deaths and 9,818 injuries from lightning strikes between 1959 and 1994. “Or about 373 strikes per year�.

Yet I see people all over the place walking around in bad weather without bothering to shelter themselves inside of Faraday Cages.

And you think this is good advice considering 370+ of them are “struck� each year on average?

I'm talking about CHLs here.

Thank goodness.

I think there is both a qualitative and a quantitative difference between being on patrol in Sadr City, crash landing a Blackhawk in Mogadishu, and making a run to the local quickie mart here in America. Attempting to blur the substantial differences by catagorizing both as "combat" is like blurring the differences between "meat by products" and "filet mignon" by catagorizing both as simply "food".

Well….�talking about CHL’s here� didn’t last long.

When I go out and about, I do not do so with the idea or feeling that I am heading into combat.

Nor…do we. We simply recognize the need to defend ourselves “might� arise and have equipped ourselves to deal with it. For you….5 rounds in your SP-101 or 7 in your 1911 constitutes equipped and ready. Great! That doesn’t make me feel all warm and fuzzy…so I carry more than that. So we’re both happy….right?

Personally, I am not one to get to wrapped up in “statistics� and “probabilities�. Instead, I take a hard look at what the “consequences� of my decisions will be.
I.E.
If I carry a weapon that holds 10+ rounds for the rest of my life and never need it, the “consequences� are: Some added weight I didn’t need to bear.

OTOH, if just one time…I find myself with multiple threats, end up at “slide lock� with those threats still present…………

Consequences! Look at it that way…and decide for yourself.