More ammo is better?

[rhino]

I knew what Burl meant, but then I'm one of the people that hollers at him if he stands still while doing a reload in the open.

As far as "spray and pray" goes, you can legitimately accuse Gabe Suarez of a lot of things, but asserting that he advocates "spray and pray" is not one of them.

 

[techres]

Gabe's article needs to be read in the narrow aspect that it was written: CCW for the LTCH carrier.

He was not talking about hunting, or combat, or mercenary work, or body guards, etc.

CCW.

And in that narrow area he points out that we are likely to get the following:

• Less warning.
• Sudden High Stress.
• Multiple targets.
• Stress reaction that makes reloading more time consuming than expected, i.e. 2-3 seconds.
• Short combat won by extreme, sudden, and overwelming violence with durations of less than 5-10 seconds.

So, again, given the above a higher round count makes sense as well as training for firing until target is down or running.

IF you wish to argue his point, please do it within the context of his argument and based on the points he is making. Otherwise you are not really arguing against him, you are just talking about something else.

Personally, what he says makes great sense to me and has me rethinking some of my carry choices.

 

[jeremy]

I did not approach this from a proper direction earlier. Let me see if I can state it a little better.

This argument has been stated before more capacity is better. It is like the argument that if it does not begin with .4 it is incapable of stopping a deathly ill mouse.

All shooting regardless of where, Bagdad or BF Indiana is pretty much fundamentally the same. Soldier, LEO, or Joe Blow, shooting is shooting. It is not the first shot that wins the fight. It is not the fastest out of the holster that wins the fight. It is not the largest caliber that wins the fight. It is not high Capacity that wins the fight. What does win is the first fatal shot. Regardless of whether you are packing the newest combat Tupperware or your matchlock, 1 shot or 22 shots, the first well aimed shot will always win the fight.

You get this though training. If the technique that works for you is shot him till he is down, and if he twitches shoot him again, or a single center mass shot. You get there though continuous training. While we are on the subject of training, let’s talk about the thing on our head. No not your hats. Your brains and thought process. Situational awareness will do more for you than the number of rounds or the newest and greatest in supersized calibers. Utilize the OODA Loop before you act. Observe, Orient, Decide, the ACT. Or if you don’t like that acronym, how about SWOT, sounds cool huh. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats are what it means. Whatever process works for you use it. Think before you act. But the by all means act.

Being aware of what is going on then having a plan of action in mind before you do it will save you more than the size of either your round or the number of rounds that you can load into the firearm to start with.

 

[ATM]

It is not the first shot that wins the fight.
But it can.
It is not the fastest out of the holster that wins the fight.
But it can.
It is not the largest caliber that wins the fight.
But it can.
It is not high Capacity that wins the fight.
But it can.
What does win is the first fatal shot.
Agreed. If there was only one of them.
Regardless of whether you are packing the newest combat Tupperware or your matchlock, 1 shot or 22 shots, the first well aimed shot will always win the fight.
This is just not true.

Most of us want every advantage we can get. I don't think anybody suggests that any one of the many possible advantages, by itself, will win. Stack enough mechanical advantages, throw in mindset and training advantages... one can greatly increase their chances. But they are still chances.

 

[45acp]

Gabe, interesting post it sort of supported my decision to put a 16 rounds mag on my Taurus 1911, it's ugly but I have 16 rounds to relie on if I need it.

 

[Prometheus]

I want as many rounds as possible.

As we enter into the coming depression (likely the greater depression), packs of armed gangs will be the order of the day (see recent world events including argentina). Ammo and lots of it will win the fight or chase it off.

Snubbies or pocket guns have a place. As a backup or in a ziplock baggie while you are swimming.

This AM in Chicago a BG tried to rob a man on his way to work. GG went after and got the BG's gun and shot him with it. BG is soooooo lucky to be alive. I can't elborate but those of you know me, know.

This was at 0630 hours. Not oh-dark-thirty. Gang bangers are getting an early start on their day's work.

Things are BAD in cook county. Real bad. Fewer are getting killed, but many, many more are getting shot and stabbed than I have seen in all of the 7 years I've been up here. This could be a record year for shooting/stabbings, if not it'll be a record for the past 7 years, at least.

Always be ready... and from a surgical point of view, 9mm or 45 makes little difference. It's a crap shoot and even placement doesn't garuntee anything. HP's help, but the body is a dynamic thing and applying static logic to it is laughable.

Carry a full powered round (like 9mm and up) and as many rounds as you can pack into it. Pocket guns can save your life, but they are for BUG's. You wouldn't use a 8 iron in place of your 1 wood because. Don't use your BUG in place of your primary.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Ok what good is capacity, if you can not hit your target. Honestly a shot from a 9mm, .40, or 45 to the chest is going to f someone up. Unless they are on some heavy drugs. The chances of you facing multiple people at once is pretty slim as a civilian. If you are faced with more then opponent, and they both have guns you are even less likely to survive. If you are more then 20 yards away, best thing you can do is find cover. Not just pop off shots at nothing. Now LE, and the Military is a different story. They have a much better need for capacity. The .45 espcialy is a proven man stoper. Just ask those who packed one in the Military before the switch to the Beretta. Or Swat, which basicly every department carries. That's why you train to shoot center mass. You have a much better chance of hitting a vital organ. Lungs, heart, etc. Most civilian encounters happen in the home anyways.

 

[hotfarmboy1]

I do somewhat agree that higher capacity can help at anytime. And sometime soon am hoping to get some 10 rd and maybe some 15 rd mags for my 1911 so I do have that higher capacity. But also have the more control than I had with my G30. You never know what you are gonna run into. So I just do whatever I can to be the best prepared I can. Extra ammo is always a good idea to have with you no matter what caliber or capacity you already have. Cause you never know what will happen.

 

[ATM]

Ok what good is capacity, if you can not hit your target.

Well, if you can't hit your target you would need more chances to get lucky, I suppose.

Does reduced capacity improve one's marksmanship out of dire necessity in some magical, wishful way?

Maybe I'm missing your point.

 

[Hoosier8]

That's why I have been carrying a Bersa 9mm HC with 17+1 of Federal HST and would like a FNP-45 with 15+1 in .45. I always figured the time taken to reload could be critical.

If you want an all metal gun then the Bersa works pretty well with the alloy frame. It is about 1/2 inch shorter than the Beretta 92FS but fits all of the same holsters. I have not found anything wrong with it.

 

[hotfarmboy1]

I really want a para P14 in 45 myself. Although when I get the money I have been tempted to go ahead and buy a G21 since I"ve already got 2 spare 13 rd mags.

 

[Glockster]

To each his own is the inevitable result of these kind of discussions but for my , (as a non-professional shooter), high capacity has always been a powerful argument. The fact is, most people on these kind of boards really don't know how they'll react when confronted with a shooting situation. If you're in that camp, you will inevitably become less accurate in your shot placement as a result of the stress, adrenaline and excitement. If I'm ever in this situation, I'll take a few extra chances to hit that COM over a bigger bore anyday. I go to the range once a month with both my 9mm and my .45. I can shoot both adequately well. But, if that moment ever comes, I'll be much happier knowing I've got 17 rds on board instead of that 10 rd .45 I left at home.

 

[SC_Shooter]

Wow, what an interesting thread to read. I've gotta agree with pretty much all the comments...some more than others, but there are nice nuggets of wisdom in all.

I train as much as possible either with dry or live fire and believe that proper shot placement is ALWAYS the answer. That said, I'm a realist and know that few battle plans survive first contact with the enemy among professional and highly-trained soldiers (way better trained than most LTCH Hoosiers will ever be). Thank God I don't know first hand, but I'm a highly logical guy and thinking that plans would not fall apart even more so with civilians is illogical at best.

The thread seems to have gone down the path of which should you focus on - accuracy or capacity. The proper answer is BOTH. Train - train - train so that you can get high hit ratios with quick shots from concealment nearly every time when you are cold. We all shoot better about 50-rounds into a training session, but the first few will count the most in a SHTF situation.

Once the muscle memory is there and things feel fairly instinctive, my vote is for as much ammo as possible. Not in the place of good shot placement and training, but just to help out when fear, environmental conditions or some sort of injury from the fight has left you at something less than your range-level accuracy.

My ideal scenario is to have both (accuracy and capacity) and rely on neither to individually end the situation. Then again, who wouldn't want the best of both worlds???

 

[kingnereli]

I understand the high capacity argument and I certainly can't find any fault in having more bullets in the mag. Though I don't think the mentality that six or nine rounds is a disadvantage. That is, unless your training dictates shooting as many rounds as possible in the shortest amount of time. I understand that a real life or death situation changes motor functions and heart rate, but it seems like the article advocates relying more on rapid fire then accuracy. I don't care if you call it "spray and pray" or "shooting the BG to the ground" I am more interested in making my hits count.

 

[Hoosier8]

I understand the high capacity argument and I certainly can't find any fault in having more bullets in the mag. Though I don't think the mentality that six or nine rounds is a disadvantage. That is, unless your training dictates shooting as many rounds as possible in the shortest amount of time. I understand that a real life or death situation changes motor functions and heart rate, but it seems like the article advocates relying more on rapid fire then accuracy. I don't care if you call it "spray and pray" or "shooting the BG to the ground" I am more interested in making my hits count.

I don't think the article is about rapid fire vs accuracy, it is more about what really happens in a gunfight. The point being that much of the training and practice (and accuracy) went out the window while under the stress of a real gunfight, so the question then becomes, do you want more bullets for a better chance or not? I think you answered that in your opening sentence.

 

[redbarontoys]

I personally prefer a 1911. Ammo is expensive, Gain the skills to make the first shot count and you don't need 100 more tries. If needed it doesnt take long to pop in a fresh clip.

 

[Joe Williams]

I'm comfortable enough with the 5 in my SP101, but I do recognize it as a limitation. However, I hit so effortlessly with this gun, and with the power it has available, that I'm confident in the ability to protect myself and my family. Heck, it's only two fewer than my wife has in her .45. I do carry a more than ample amount of spare ammo in speed loaders and speed strips, so if the first five don't work, I should be able to maneuver to a location to reload. If I can't... well... the Ruger is a heavy gun. I'll try to club the bad guys and take their guns

 

[Sailor]

:sigh:

Carry what you're good with. Carry what you like. Practice with what you carry.

I think first, choose the right tool for the job, which is what this article is suggesting. Once you have the right tool, then carry, and practice with what your good with.

Whether or not higher capacity guns are the best tool, is the debate.

I am most accurate with my buckmark, but that would be a poor choice for ccw in my opinion.

 

[kingnereli]

I don't think the article is about rapid fire vs accuracy, it is more about what really happens in a gunfight. The point being that much of the training and practice (and accuracy) went out the window while under the stress of a real gunfight, so the question then becomes, do you want more bullets for a better chance or not? I think you answered that in your opening sentence.

I think this is a training issue. A trainer that uses this "shoot the BG to the ground" model is going to suggest larger capacity semi-autos. A point shooting trainer is going to appeal to cases of people in real gun fights reporting they didn't use their sights. The two to the chest one to the head guys are going to reference the FBI study and others that say the majority of defensive situations will require only 2-3 shots. Statistics can be skewed or omitted. So, to answer your question, I do not want to rely on the number of bullets I have to compensate for the added stress of a real encounter. I want to practice keeping a cool head under stress. I want my training to be as reality based as possible.

Like basically every area of life there are different schools of thought. No matter where one stands it is vital to be well rounded and have the ability to admit the weaknesses of your stance. If you have chosen a medium caliber just so you can have 17 rounds available before a reload that's great. Just don't pretend you haven't sacrificed some effectiveness for the sake of capacity. If you are a proponent of point shooting that fine. Just don't pretend you haven't sacrifice some effective range for the sake of speed. For us low capacity, accuracy, two to the chest one to the head guys we need to not be fooled into thinking will never need more the 3 shots. We have sacrificed capacity for a list of possible reasons.

It should be clear that there are no easy answers. No school of thought it is clearly best. We should all be careful that when touting a particular philosophy that we not blind ourselves to it's particular shortcomings or the strengths of others.

 

[Agent 007]

.