Being sincere here, I clicked on it thinking that it referred to the hard financial times USA is going through, and that it had security advice in that regard. My mistake.
Still, I got to read his warning regarding senseless discussions, so its good to remind people about it before posts evolve into urinating championships.

I’m making this post because I just got off the phone, after talking with a friend of mine.

We talked about the current situation our country is going through, the food shortages and empty shelves, and how long things will hold on until people get desperate.

As an afterthought she mentioned that some robbers attacked her father and his girlfriend (divorced) while they watched over her recently married sister’s home, while she was in her honeymoon.

I always try to learn as much detail as I can from these situations.
As usual, 3 armed men intercepted the couple when they arrived to the sister’s house, when they were getting out of the car.

Then, three more guys showed up, each driving a car!
They tied them up, loaded the cars full of the newly wedded couple’s gifts, everything they had was soon fitted into the cars.
After that, one of the bad guys cut the cable off an appliance, stripped the end of the cable, and threatened to torture them with electric shocks.
There was also some money in the house, about $ 1000, and fortunately they didn’t fulfill the threat.

When I hear about such incidents, which unfortunately happen very often, I’ve noticed that most of the time, at least 2 or 3 criminals are involved, probably 4 of more. I seldom hear of armed criminals working solo, with the exception of rapists.

Understanding this context, I can’t help but to remember how ill fitted the 3-4 round average per self defense shooting is these days.

This supposed average has been around for decades.
Got to wonder, is it still accurate?

Aside from some murders when only one shot is fired into an unlucky person ( I don’t consider those gunfights) when gun fights do occur, much more rounds are fired.
30-40 rounds in a gunfight last week, and not long ago a cop told me about one they had against 5 or 6 bad guys where 50-60 rounds where fired.
When you have an average of 3 criminals armed with 15 round pistols, it’s easy to see how the firepower required can easily exceed the supposed 3 or 4 average.

In a perfect world, internet commandos with nerves of steel are 100% sure that they will land each and ever shot in the heart or head of their attackers.

In a less perfect world, but a more realistic one, people like Jeanne Assam fire 10 shots to stop a single attacker.

So, the question is pretty simple; do you think that it is wise to expect to shoot just 3 or 4 rounds, or should you have a weapon with more capacity just in case that average no longer holds truth, or you just happen to be one of those that don’t trust luck when it comes to falling within favorable odds.
It would be great if we could have a mature discussion here guys. Data from real gunfights would be good too.

I have been wary ever since of being caught somewhere without enough ammo, . . . so I carry at least one spare magazine for whatever auto I have on me at the time, . . . and as often as not, . . . I carry 2 spare mags.

If I am out of town, . . . I have 3 spare mags, . . . and maybe even a full box of ammo, . . . just in case I get to go shooting somewhere.

No, . . . I don't believe that 2 or 3 or 4 rounds would be enough in a real life confrontation.

May God bless,
Dwight

__________________www.dwightsgunleather.com
If you can breathe, . . . thank God!
If you can read, . . . thank a teacher!
If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!

It depends on what "shootings" you're looking at. If you include LEO shootings, the number of rounds is probably greater than 5. If you include criminal shootings (drive-bys, revenge, etc.) the number is also probably greater. But, if you look at civilian defensive shootings at home and at work that number is probably still true (here in the US anyway). Even in multiple assailant confrontations.

the way this stat was first used was to describe each gunfight incident for NYPD. NYPD has gathered gunfight data for their officers since the 1890's had this information has been passed to and fro ever since.

the key to this part of the data is that the event you described would have been broken down into each individual shooting sequence and analyzed separately, this is where the mean average of 3 to 4 shots per engagement came from.

Yes, 3-4 shots per person - per gunfight remains about the average across the board.

Below is a data example from a NYPD, SOP9 police combat analysis report that supports the 3-4 shot claim.

Obviously, it's not representative of all gunfights, but it is a microcosm of big city shootings involving both on and off duty police vs civilians.
Part of your answer lies in this legitimate data. There's plenty more data out there that supports the 3-4 shot average for all types of shootings.

Research it yourself, but if the data/opinion is not legitimately documented.....totally ignore it.

NYPD SOP 9 - ANALYSIS OF POLICE COMBAT
In 1969, the Firearms and Tactics Section of the New York City Police Department instituted a procedure for the in-depth documentation and study of police combat situations. It was designated Department Order SOP 9.
Data gathering began in January 1970, and over 6000 cases were studied during the 1970s. The study results and findings were released in 1981.

FIREARMS DISCHARGE ASSAULT REPORT 1992

GUNFIGHTS STATISTICS:

Total: 76 (27% of shooting incidents)

Total number of MOS involved on duty: 151 Off duty: 11
Total number of shots fired by MOS: 583
Total number of hits by MOS: 96
Hit potential 17%
Shots per incident 7.7
Shots by MOS per incident 3.6
Total number of perpetrators involved 87
Total number of shots fired by perps 257
Total number of hits by perpetrators 17
Hit potential 7%
Average shots by perps per incident 3.0

Skyguy and Scattergun Bob are correct.
The original NYPD SOP9 dat were collected when the NYPD was for the most part using revolvers. Thgey have been updated since the switch to 9mm semiautos.
Interestingly, the average no. of shots fired to terminate a police-perp encounter by NYPD officers has gone up to 6.9
BUT

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%.
In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%.
And in 2000, when semiauto's were in widespread use, the average hit potential was...
Less than 9%.

So, it would seem that use of higher capacity handguns has increased the number of shots fired per incident, but the probability of hit per shots fired has significantly decreased.

The original NYPD SOP9 finding that shot placement is the single most important factor in ending a gunfight remains true.
So, in actual police shootings the data show:
shooting more does not increase hit potential;
shooting 3-4 shots is adequate if placement is good.

At first I'd think it's weird the percentage of hits went down so far but...

Have any of you fired a NYPD Glock 19? They have NY-2 triggers. I've fired one so set up and it's awfull. Two, when you fire more rounds, I'd expect more misses for the simple reason if it's hard to connect with one shot, then it will be harder to connect with 6 or 7! And also when more than one cop fires, well then several 15 shot pistols are firing and that's a lot of lead in the air.

In Dallas about 10 years a go three cops stopped a shotgun welding man. The BG got out of his pickup and pointed the shotgun at the cops (bad move that.) Well they fired something like 107 rounds. Hit him 11 times I think (not seriously!!!!!) Some of the rounds hit houses behind him, some hit is truck, others it signs and trees.

So I can see both the number of shots going up and the hit rate going down.

__________________
"The government has confiscated all of our rights and is selling them back to us in the form of permits."

Instead of allowing antiquated/unrepresentative "data" to guide how many shots one should be prepared to use in defense of his/her LIFE, why not take REALITY as a guide? What types of weapons do gang members, say, use in their crimes? How commonly are 9mm weapons available and used by criminals?

Common sense, I imagine, is arguably that most potent "weapon" in self defense.

Well guys look at it this way. I havn't had a flat on my car in something like 20 years, so should I haul around that extra weight and burn up more gas? On the average....

Or should I put in a fire alarm in my house as so few per 1000 homes get burned down?

Should I have health insurance since most people don't get so sick they would spend on medical care what the insurance cost for many years!

Ok, the chances of needing a weapon to defend your self are actually low. The chance you will have to actually fire the weapon is lower still. And the chance you will have to fire LOTS of ammo very remote. But as for how far you need to prepare.... that's up to you.

I drew the line with my Glock 27 (11 rounds), spare mag (10 rounds) and Centinial .38 (5 rounds.) Plus lots and lots of H2H training (it's my avocation.) Will I need it? Probably not. Will it be enough? I sure hope so!

__________________
"The government has confiscated all of our rights and is selling them back to us in the form of permits."

Whenever someone drags out that old chestnut - "Most gunfights are only 3 or 4 rounds" - to justify not carrying reloads, my response is always "Unless they're not. Then what are you gonna do?"

I carry multiple reloads more for the fact that the magazine is the weak point in any semi auto handgun system than any expectation of getting in a long running gun battle. My rule of thumb is 4 reloads for single stacks, 2 for double stacks, minimum.

Deaf Smith, I can't agree more with your input. Excellent - in my opinion. One keeps hearing the pathetic - if not asinine - remark after a home invasion etc., "We NEVER had such an incident in OUR neighborhood!" Even heaven is NOT criminal-safe for the devil dwelt there once upon a time.

And, Raytracer, I like the bit about "The only time you can have too much ammo is when you're swimming."

But let's say the ultimate does occur and a criminal is shot dead, and the police finds the shooter [the would-be victim] with a "Glock 27 (11 rounds), spare mag (10 rounds) and Centinial .38 (5 rounds.)" - an "arsenal" as an attorney might describe it to a Clinton-minded jury. Would not the "weaponry" injure the would-be victim who defended himself/herself?

Most of the opinions offered will be non-expert. I suggest one search on the issue to avoid repetitive prose.

The basic answer is:

1. Weapons related issues can influence juries.
2. They don't have to be explicitly raised, just appearance will do it. So you won't see it in the legal databases.
3. The influence interacts with jury knowledge, gender, expert testimony, etc.
4. Your lawyer and experts can help defuse such at trial
5. Someone will say - It doesn't matter if it is a good shoot. However, if you in a trial - someone thinks it isn't a good shoot.

I wouldn't not carry standard stuff because of the court fear. Avoid being seen as mall ninja, raving killer. Shut up about that stuff. Have a lawyer who knows such. Or experts.

You have again played right into FerFAL and his continued crusade for high capacity handguns. I see the wisdom of Mr Benzene, Mr Raimius, Mr Meyer, and Mr Raytracer. HOWEVER, gentleman in your rush to agree with FerFAL you overlooked the true issue. Is the data that supports officer involved shooting "and it is current data" valid in relation to civilian shooting incidents? The answer is no, only those small number of times that LEO personal are truly surprised does the data have merit.

Mr Meyer, you made some discourteous remark about learning better stats, yet supply none to support you claim! Please I am willing to read any data that is available provided it is legitimate. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, besides LE data collected and rigorously tested no solid information exists. Self-conceived reality, I heard about, and I think it happened this way are not the stuff to base a strategy on.

Frankly, I try to stay out of these discussions, how many rounds and how many predators and how many reloads don't matter much. What really matters to me is to use what I have available with decisiveness and aggressiveness, and to keep thinking through the fight.

To FerFAL I say enough you win, only a fool would take less ammo than was needed to win the firefight. So how many rounds is that SIR.

I carry multiple reloads more for the fact that the magazine is the weak point in any semi auto handgun system than any expectation of getting in a long running gun battle. My rule of thumb is 4 reloads for single stacks, 2 for double stacks, minimum.

Some of you guys carry more ammo on your person just going back and forth to the john than a lot of cops who are far more likely to need their firearm . . .

Amazingly, I survived years of undercover work in some pretty nasty organizations with nothing more than a Model 19 2 1/2" and no reloads.

Jeff

__________________
If every single gun owner belonged to the NRA as well as their respective state rifle/gun association, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

Let's face it, any carry loadout is a compromise. What you decide to carry is largely based on what you wear, what you are comfortable carrying (weight wise), how you assess the potential threats around you, and what you feel safe with.

Most people will never need anything more than a couple shots...but then we get into odds and statistics again.
Most people do not get into running firefights, but it does occasionally happen.

The reason I mention statistical training in these threads is the constant misuse of the average as a decision metric. There is also the inability for some folks to realize that incidents of any type are multicausal and may vary in characteristics.

Thus, we see a lot of nonsense about the decision rules used. Yes, you can plan for the base rate response and probabilitistically you will be fine. But, again and again - what cut off on the extremes to you take into account.

If you don't get this argument and only want to argue from anecdote - then you really do need at least familarity with research design.

Criminological stats are all over the place and very suspect. The folks who actual know stats know this quite well.

Again, for the civilian - the modal gun usage indicates the need for NO ammo.

It's like folks arguing about stopping power mechanisms with no knowledge of physiology at all. Maybe we should talk about how a COM shot disrupts the basic humors of the body as described the ancient Greeks.

Benzene wrote:
But let's say the ultimate does occur and a criminal is shot dead, and the police finds the shooter [the would-be victim] with a "Glock 27 (11 rounds), spare mag (10 rounds) and Centinial .38 (5 rounds.)" - an "arsenal" as an attorney might describe it to a Clinton-minded jury. Would not the "weaponry" injure the would-be victim who defended himself/herself?

So you’d water down your choice of defense weapons just in case you end up with a Clinton jury??

That’s similar to the ideology of people that would rather have a lever action gun over an AK because it supposedly looks better in court.

Masaad Ayoob (spelling?) wrote about it enough, and he seems to know what he’s talking about.
Among many other cases, he explained one where a full auto weapon was used in self defense, with no ill effect at the time of the jury.
Don’t worry about the color of your gun, but worry about having a justified cause for the deadly force you used.

If you killed someone that was shooting at you, it doesn’t matter than you used an AK. If you shot the neighbor’s kid by accident, doesn’t matter that you used a 28” double barrel shotgun.
The only thing that COULD (depending on the judge and jury) work against you is your attitude and general reputation.

Say you carry two Glock 10mms, 10 spare mags, and a 2” S&W 44 magnum as backup, but your neighbors have only good things to say about you, it wont make a difference.
Same “arsenal” and neighbors can’t stand you and you can’t stop yourself form saying how much you want to kill people, then your situation isn’t very good.

Most important thing: Shoot in self defense, when you are in reasonable fear of your life. The gun you use? Use the best ones available, the ones that better your odds the most.

Frankly, I try to stay out of these discussions, how many rounds and how many predators and how many reloads don't matter much. What really matters to me is to use what I have available with decisiveness and aggressiveness, and to keep thinking through the fight.

That’s a smart statement: “ to use what I have available with decisiveness and aggressiveness”.
Might I add:" To make the best of what I have"?

I have a small keycahin LED that I love. Used it many times. 1000x better than No light at all, but for a while I’ve been carrying a small, single AA LED flashlight.
I travel in subway everyday and due to the current situation in my country they are not that dependable. People have found themselves walking in those tunnels when the subs have mechanical problems ... in total darkness..
The Keychain LED was , lets say “bare minimum” for most situations. It’s comfortable to carry of course, but I considered I was being a bit to "convenient" with myself, giving up greater advantage just because of comfort.

Same applies to guns.
A small snub is not only a beautiful piece of machinery.. its also VERY comfortable. Why, most people that carry them don’t even have to bother with a holster, they just drop it in a pocket.
That’s great. But be honest with the reasons of why you are choosing such firearm.
You said “to use what I have available with decisiveness and aggressiveness”.
Perfect. But what you have available will only be determined by what you bothered to take with you, let it be a nice AA LED when caught in the sub tunnel as it starts flooding, or a 15+1 round when some guys start shooting at me when I arrive home and open the garage door.
The “What I have available” part, is only up to you. If you bothered enough to go in such a direction, the armed citizen way, why choose the one that offers solutions just for a comfortable and convenient spectrum of possibilities?

Quote:

To FerFAL I say enough you win, only a fool would take less ammo than was needed to win the firefight. So how many rounds is that SIR.

I don’t know, wish I knew but I don’t.
Could be 1 , could be 5, 6 could be 15 or 1000 ( but I suppose that out of the question).. could be none.
If faith wanted it to be 6 and you only have 5, then my friend you are one round short of making through it alive.
Since we don’t know, what CAN we do?
The way I see it: Cover as much ground, as much possibilities as possible.
Without compromising accuracy and reliability, you can easily go with 15+1 rounds so that’s what I carry.
Others like single stacked 1911s better. You have less ammo in the mag but the caliber is pretty good, you still have 9 rounds if you use a 8 round +1, and the 1911 is arguably one of the best fighting guns out there, so I can see why people choose it.
The important thing ( at least to me) is just that, the reason. Not choosing a tool, one that I’m choosing to protect something as important as my life and the life of my loved ones, based on what the most comfortable gun out there, the one that bothers me the less.
Seems like a pretty bad priority to have.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.