Quote of the Day: Armed Citizens Don’t Need to Carry More Than Five or Six Rounds

“Frankly, while magazine capacity might be an issue for members of law enforcement, it is not much of one for the legally armed citizen. Research into actual gunfights involving the armed citizen seldom shows more ammunition is needed beyond what’s in their concealed-carry revolver. Unlike the Walter Mitty-esque fantasy warriors, the armed citizen does not fight pitched battles with the trusty handgun. He or she uses it as an exit ticket, and it is just amazing what five or six rounds of quality defensive ammunition, accurately placed, can do to change the mindset and actions of a miscreant bent on mayhem.” – Sheriff Jim Wilson in Pros and Cons of Concealed-Carry Revolvers [via shootingillustrated.com]

comments

  1. avatar GRA says:

    I myself will determine what I need to carry and how much ammo; to include where and when. Same for everybody else.

    1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      ^ That. Right there.

      1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

        He’s not attempting to limit your ammo maximum. He’s just ridiculing anybody that wants to carry over the number of rounds that fit in a particular revolver.

        1. avatar Art out West says:

          Frankly, 6-7 rounds of .357 in a service revolver would also serve law enforcement officers just fine – most of the time.

          That “most of the time” is a tricky thing isn’t it?

          In my own personal threat assessment, I believe that 5 rounds of 38+P in my 642 is generally “enough”. That little revolver is what I carry 95% of the time. I live in a good neighborhood, in a fairly pleasant town. I don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, while doing stupid things.

          I also own pistols with more firepower (Glock 19, 22, etc.), and occasionally carry them (but generally just have them for home defense, and range use). I still like having them, since they give me the option of carrying more rounds if I want them. If crime levels go up in my area, then I’ll upgrade to carrying a double stack.

          People have the right to carry whatever they want. Carry a gun with a 20 round mag and a dozen spares if you want. That is great. I hope you are around to help out if I ever happen to get attacked by ISIS. I know my 642 wouldn’t be much use against guys with AK’s.

          Still, I think a lightweight snub nosed revolver in .38sp+P (AirWeight Smith, or Ruger LCR) makes an excellent carry gun for most people, most of the time.

        2. avatar DaveW says:

          I would have agreed with your assessment in the 1950s or even into the 1970s. Since then, however, criminal gangs like MS-13 have invaded this country. Not just in the southwest where they initially enter illegally, but also in both cities and small towns across the continental USA.

          I’m not supportive of lugging around 50 loaded magazines. The weight would probably slow you down. But, whether you have a six shooter, or semi-auto, I support a loaded firearm and two reloads for 5, 6, 7 and 10 rounders. If you carry a double stack, one reload should be sufficient. Three 6 round loads is what I carried on duty with a revolver, and 3 seven round magazines for my 1911.

          Remember that even with training, the average shooter is going to miss a few times due to adrenalin flowing, especially the first time the SHTF. They may even freeze up. I saw that in Vietnam with new troops who froze up the first time out. Not all new troops, mind you, but some and you never knew which. Also, new troops burned up ammo at a higher rate than seasoned troops. It was not unusual to burn through an entire ration of ammo and have to get more from others. That’s with 20 round M16 magazines. Imagine burning up your 5, 6, or 7 rounds and then not having any reserve if you need to continue to defend yourself.

        3. avatar Ken Dye says:

          Jan 4, 2008 I was carjacked, kidnapped, forced to ride in the back of my own vehicle with a sawed-off shotgun IN MY MOUTH by FOUR PUNkASS thugs, aged 13, 14, 17, & 18. Gang initiation. I guess they had to prove how “manly” they are, 4 armed assholes forcing a stranger who was trying to keep his bills paid while going to college and make something of himself gets sent to them on a fake delivery. EACH ONE had a long gun AND a handgun. ALL had rap sheets a mile long, except the 13 y/o who was apparently a first-timer…..meaning they ALL ILLEGALLY POSSESSED WEAPONS, folks! EXISTING gun laws are BS; besides, it doesn’t matter how strict they are, the criminals will ALWAYS HAVE THEM! Therefore, I really DO NOT CARE what the idiots in charge pass. I will carry with me everywhere I can (legally) and where I cannot (legally) carry, they better have armed security or I don’t go.

          http://www.scnow.com/news/local/article_1095a183-2028-588d-823c-50f93e4f024e.html

          http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/12250455/gang-initiation-victim-pushes-for-stricter-sentencing

          I live with pain in my left hip ALL THE TIME EVERY DAY. They also pretty much ruined my psyche when it comes to working for someone ELSE ever again bc it’s nearly impossible for me to “carry while working” at 99% of jobs and the 1% where you CAN are too physical for me to do now. These SOBs ruin peoples’ lives EVERY DAY and bitch about “White Supremacy,” seriously? They’re at war with us just like the Muslims are but it’s just “undeclared” anymore. Look at interracial crime statistics and how one-sided they are. Over 90% of gang members are either black or Hispanic, and it’s not so much a color thing but a cultural issue. So many so-called “parents” see their children as inconveniences rather than their offspring or *gasp* a LOVED ONE, I can’t really blame the kids because they’re seeking affirmation wherever they can get it and don’t get it from home, they look elsewhere. Age doesn’t matter, however, when it comes to stuff like this. If a 13 y/o (or any age, it doesn’t matter to me) ever threatens me again, and it’s immediately credible, they die, period. It will have been by their own decisions if it happens. I sure hope it never comes to that, but I extend a hand in friendship….while the other holds a loaded gun just out of sight, just in case…..

        4. avatar Dave M says:

          “My religion is simple, my religion is kindness. If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun—Dalai Lama”
          This kind of sums it up; even though we are peaceable and kind to people, be ready to defend yourself against the scum who have no morals or scruples. I would add that no matter what weapon they had, be ready. I really get disgusted when I hear the that the perps were ‘unarmed’; the hell they were unless they were double amputees of the arms. Even then watch out for the feet.. I read your whole post and the news reports and I am going to keep it for reference for those who argue just to ‘give them what they want’ and everything will be fine. The hell it will. I don’t have the links, but a guy who cooperated and was polite was stabbed 47 times (he died) for his ‘cooperation’. Some cases I saw on the news; 72 year man killed (stabbed) by 3 juveniles while he was waiting for a bus. He had $3 on him for the bus, they each got a dollar for murder. A college professor (I believe) was walking in a park or something; stabbed to death and then robbed. In ‘Criminal Finishing School’, aka Prison, they are taught that you got caught because you left witnesses…………

        5. avatar Jack Gordon says:

          Art out West sums it up perfectly. Easy to use, dependable, light, the S&W 642 encourages CONSTANT carry. I don’t have to think about what I’m wearing, what belt to choose, how baggy the tee-shirt is when my sidekick is the Smith; it fits every occasion perfectly!

    2. avatar Baldwin says:

      There, Gun Grabbers…see how simple and easy that was? Your adult supervision of the frenzied hordes of gun owners was not needed. So, you know, move your sh!t on down the road.

    3. avatar Steven Poyzer says:

      Ditto!

    4. avatar SigSauer says:

      Same here. My EDC is a SIG 1911, my wife carries a SIG P239 and we have two extra magazines in each car. I figure if I need more than that, I’m in a world of hurt. At home, our “bump in the night” is a SIG P226 with 18 in the magazine! Plus extra magazines stashed around our home. All we need is a few minutes and we can be in our “safe” room. Lots of ammo and lots of fire power.

    5. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      “NOBODY NEEDS MORE THEN 5-6 ROUNDS”- Said a guy with an auto loading pistol that can take a large mag.

      Fudds are the worst.

    6. avatar cholocruiser says:

      Nobody ever said after a gunfight, “man, I’m sorry I brought all this ammo”. I love ya sheriff, but I’ll decide that for me self.

    7. avatar Zamorak says:

      I’m glad you said it.

      The quote assumes that you’re dealing with one individual who will merely flee or who will most certainly be incapacitated by a few rounds.

      It doesn’t take into consideration that gentleman’s buddies who, when they hear gunshots, bring in backup.

      As unlikely as that sounds, I think I’ll keep my 42+1 of .40 S&W in my three mags on me at all times, as is my right.

      I don’t practice mag swaps at the range for kicks.

  2. avatar Pwrserge says:

    That may have been true before ISIS was a thing. These days, you need to be prepared for spontaneous outbreaks of aloha snackbar.

    1. avatar Dave M says:

      I wonder if watching a surveillance video of 5 thugs attacking one good guy would change his mind, it did mine. Fortunately the GG was appropriately armed & there 5 casualties on the BG side. The ‘new normal’ that our former bastard in chief helped to bring on has changed things for the much worse. While the odds are not high, keeping with the car analogy, why would you only keep a gallon of gas in your tank, thinking that it will go from point A to B just fine in normal circumstances; then you hit a traffic jam, accident or detour. Now you’re stuck along the road.

      1. avatar Judge Dredd says:

        Probably not as Farago has the Teflon coating on the belief that he is the smartest man in the room when he is really the stupidest.

        1. avatar Eremeya says:

          It looks like we have a new The_Resistance or 2Asux…

        2. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

          Apparently, you don’t read – that was Jim Wilson positing not Robert Fargo.

        3. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          Uh, WHO is really the stupidest? At least I read the story and understood who wrote what…

      2. avatar Tim says:

        Link to vid?

        Thanks!

        1. avatar Dave M says:

          Saw the video about a year ago, don’t have the link, wish I did. It was a home invasion with I think all 5 armed. They repeatedly, violently kicked the door until it gave and rushed in–to hail of gunfire from the homeowner. Prompted me to get 3 more Rugers, but in 9mm; a 9E (17+1), SR9C (17+1 & 10+1), LC9S (7+1 & 9+1) with extra spare mags for all. Just in case. (Still have all the revolvers, my wife hates semi autos).

      3. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

        When the subject of a handgun’s ammo capacity arises we MUST remember that Saint Swishers himself aka the “Gentle Giant” Mike Brown took at least SIX (6) HOLLOWPOINT ROUNDS from a .40 caliber while charging and was nearly upon Officer Darren Wilson before meeting the pavement and expiring in a puddle of his own piss and shit.

        No one ever knows how many assailants they will face in a Defensive Gun Use (DGU) or if there will there be an opportunity to seek shelter in fact it may be better to “close” upon a shooter if for some reason (disability) you can’t flee to safety.

        During the most recent Islamic Terror attack in Paris at the Champs d Elysee where French police were targeted citizens of the Republic and tourists ran for their lives once the shooting started. Eyewitness reports say many of those fleeing fell during the confusion, some were lucky enough to enter businesses that quickly shuttered their stores pulling down the corrugated gates and stayed for nearly TWO (2) HOURS before emerging while others were left to just “run” hoping to create distance. If you’re caught “outside” and facing a determined enemy/enemies wielding a semi or auto rifle and only have a handgun you’re going to want to have as many rounds as possible with which to repel or neutralize your attacker(s).

      4. avatar Ken Dye says:

        In any given victim’s case, the chances are 100%.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      To be truly prepared for an aloha snackbar moment you need a rifle on your person at all times.

      Thankfully none of us will ever face that moment. Unless we travel to France or the middle east.

      1. avatar Pwrserge says:

        Against most of the “sudden outbreak of jihad” incidents in the past year or two, a semi-auto handgun with ~30 rounds on tap should be more than sufficient.

        1. avatar mrbadnews says:

          Dang, Serge.
          You rolling Hate Sticks in your EDC?
          That’s just mean

        2. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Nope 2x 17 rounders for my cold weather loadout. My battle belt has 3x 21 round magazines, but that’s mostly for SHTF or two gun situations. (The ready magazine in the pistol is still a standard 17 round stick because I’m lazy.)

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Or Orlando or San Bernardino.

        1. avatar samuraichatter says:

          I grew up in and around SB and the gang bangers do most of the killing even if the jihadis get most of the attention.

    3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Funny, I’d argue just the opposite. If you encounter a jihadi you may need something that will reach out to 50 or 100 yards and most semi-autos are practically useless at that range.

      1. avatar Pwrserge says:

        If I’m 50-100 yards from a would be jihadi, I can almost certainly disengage. It’s not my job to hunt these clowns down anymore. I leave that to the professionals who actually get paid to do it.

        1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          No kidding. Seriously, what goes through some of the minds around here. Engaging bad guys at 50 – 100 yards in public places??

        2. avatar Nigel the expat says:

          What Pwrserge said. If that makes me a coward, so be it. I carry for defense, of myself, my loved ones, maybe random stranger A under very specific circumstances, other than that, making distance and let the guys with armor and ‘goodwil’ handle it.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          “If I’m 50-100 yards from a would be jihadi, I can almost certainly disengage.”
          Good for you. Not everyone can move quickly. Many people have disabilities. But even if you are healthy, how fast can your kids run? My older ones are quick, my younger ones wouldn’t stand a chance against an attacker closing in on them that was 50 yards away. Don’t think it’s important? How long is a long hall at your local elementary school? In mine, it’s literally 50 yards. What if it starts outside? My kids may have to run, but I may have to buy them time. Rounds at the target, especially rounds on the target, do just that, they buy you time for either your loved ones to get away, or for additional support to arrive.
          Remember, the enemy gets a vote.

        4. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          Let’s play your game, Taylor:

          Give me a number of rounds you are comfortable carrying. I’ll come up with a scenario where that is not enough.

        5. avatar Chad says:

          Yep, the scenario of my kids made me rethink pocket 380 carry… Pocket carry with my p238 is just so dang easy and should be enough to get a healthy 30 year old male out of most situations I can think of, but add in 2 young kids and a wife and the math doesn’t pencil out as well… Was a 17+1 FNX for me all winter, now with summer coming on starting to work in 9mm 1911… Not near the capacity with the 1911, same as my p238, but larger gun I can actually hit stuff at distance.

        6. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Taylor… I just don’t see myself having a clean line of fire much over 25 yards in any of the recent jihadi incidents. We’re not talking about chasing Haji over the mountains of Afghanistan. Most of us live in at least semi-urban areas where you have cross streets every 100-200 yards.

          If I’m that far from the incident, me charging in half-cocked is not going to help. If I absolutely have to, I am more or less guaranteed to have cover (or at least concealment) between me and the haji in question that more or less negates the limited engagement range of my sidearm. The last thing I want to do in an incident like that is start laying down suppressive fire with possibly dozens of civilians in front, around, and behind my target.

          For Paris or Mumbai style incidents, the Jihad bag under my passenger seat is a last resort. (That’s where my 7.62 Krink lives with a airframe plate carried and a trio of spare magazines.) The thing is, Paris and Mumbai are the only two incidents I can think of where having that gear would have measurably helped.

        7. avatar ElChefe says:

          50-100 yards away, under duress, in public with people most likely running in any/all directions is not a wise shot to make if you have the option to not make it. If you want to give people cover and not help the attacker’s casualty rates with friendly fire, you can feel free to get his attention by yelling while closing the distance. You would definitely be a hero then. Otherwise, like Pwrserge said, disengaging is the right choice.

        8. avatar Vhyrus says:

          Is it a braced krink? SBR? enquiring minds want to know.

        9. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Pwrserge, “Taylor… I just don’t see myself having a clean line of fire much over 25 yards in any of the recent jihadi incidents. ” You are right there, but I wasn’t suggesting Islamic terrorism, I was suggesting Sandi Hook or Columbine.

        10. avatar jwtaylor says:

          The Gray Poseur, in a few comments down from here you argue that ZERO rounds is enough, that the mere sight of a weapon is guaranteed to scare away an attacker. No need to even load your gun.
          Which is it?

        11. avatar Pwrserge says:

          It’s an Arsenal factory SBR. For my intended purposes, it’s the perfect truck gun.

          Taylor, if I’m close enough to a school shooting incident to intervene AND armed, (only situation I can think of is dropping kids off for school) the gun I have is unlikely to make much of a difference. Those clowns tend to blow their own brains out when they hit serious resistance.

        12. avatar Badgerman says:

          I agree with JWTaylor your local super market, Target, and Walmart can provide clear shots is some cases over 50 yards depending on store occupancy at the time. But, I feel it’s up to the individual what they carry, how they carry, and how much ammo they carry. I am just happy that all us here have the ability to defend ourselves and our loved ones. That’s one of reasons I like coming here.

        13. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          Alright Taylor, I don’t know about you fancy gun dudes out in Austin, but here is the most overwhelmingly likely real-life scenario in my part of the world. This good guy needed between 0 and 6 rounds, literally minimal training but simply a willingness to carry and then present his weapon. I consider the bad guys response to be pretty much what I expect to occur literally 99% of the time. Being ready for this scenario covers 99% of it for me. I don’t spend my life worrying about the other 1%:

          http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man-71-shoots-alleged-robbers-internet-cafe/story?id=16800859

        14. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          What if the jihadi has an AK47? What if he’s wearing a suicide vest with a 100 yard blast radius? What if jihadis bar the doors before they engage? What if you’re on a bridge and the jihadi’s weapon is a Mac truck? Lots of possibilities.

        15. avatar jwtaylor says:

          The Gray Poseur, if the “you do your thing, I’ll do mine” was your attitude, it would be fine. But it’s not. You routinely ridicule and criticize anyone who attends training, carries a spare magazine, or even considers the common scenario of multiple assailants that don’t back down.
          You do all of that, with literally zero experience or data to support your claims. You regularly contradict yourself, as you have in response to this article.
          As long as you keep spouting off opinion as fact, with no data and no experience, I’ll keep pointing to real data, pointing out where data doesn’t exist, and providing my real world experience.

        16. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          Hey, I simply point out that loads of military experience, fancy fitness training, firearms training classes, multiple magazines, a truckload full of gear, spilling your guts and other personal details online and acting like an Internet firearms badass/”hero” aren’t necessary for 99% of the possible DGU’s.

          I’ll stick with moving to a safer area, situational awareness, carrying a gun, any gun and I’m not going to or need to dig up any data for you. Use those three shovels in your truck for that.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Governor,

        That is why I am thinking more and more that I might start carrying a full-size revolver (with a six-inch barrel) in .44 Magnum. Assuming that I can put bullets on target out to 100 yards with said revolver (which should be doable with a little practice), Johnny Jihadi’s vision will go dark real quick-like after absorbing even a single .43 caliber expanding hollowpoint bullet impacting at something like 1,300 fps.

        1. avatar Vhyrus says:

          While that would certainly improve your long range game it would significantly impair your draw stroke and short range maneuverability should something happen at bad breath distances, a far more likely scenario than having to take a headshot on an armed person at 100 yards.

        2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          I like your attitude u_s. But I have to concur with Vhyrus though, I’d lean more toward something like the 4.2″ Redhawk. It should still get the job done but easier to carry. You could also opt for .41 magnum or heavy .45 Colt. The .41 should mitigate the recoil pretty well and still hit really hard at 100 yards.

          If you do limit your round count you should make sure they hit hard, IMHO.

        3. avatar Just Jim says:

          When I carry my 629-6″, I use a Bianchi #111 Crossdraw. It is a smooth, fast draw, which puts me on target quickly. The problem is, I need to be wearing a blanket poncho to conceal it. …. (Blondie: You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.)

    4. avatar Caitlin says:

      I laughed so hard at aloha snackbar that I nearly choked. Just letting you know.

  3. avatar Chris says:

    Perhaps true, but my car doesn’t need to go further than the next gas station either. Yet it can. I’ll take as much capacity and ammo as I can get for the ‘mission’ nevertheless. Thanks, Sheriff Spock.

  4. avatar Pistol Pete says:

    “it is just amazing what five or six rounds of quality defensive ammunition, accurately placed, can do to change the mindset and actions of a miscreant bent on mayhem”

    My issue is the “accurately placed” part. If I’m full of adrenaline and scared for my life, I might need that 16 rounds in my Glock or other wonder 9 to hit the bad guy 4 or 5 times. I hope I’m more accurate than that, but I can’t be sure until it happens. (I hope it never happens)

    1. avatar Sunshine_Shooter says:

      He’s right, though. 5 or 6 well-placed rounds are pretty likely to change the mindset of a miscreant. *A* miscreant. If I’m ever set upon by a single individual, 5 or 6 will probably be sufficient.

      But I don’t plan for the best case scenario.

      1. avatar rc says:

        Well stated…there’s no law of the universe that says you can only be threatened by one attacker at a time.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Sunshine Shooter,

        Five or six rounds may very well NOT be enough even for a single attacker since defenders will only hit their attacker with about one out of every three or four shots on average. And whatever hits you land on target may not incapacitate your attacker for several minutes (or hours).

    2. avatar Chad says:

      To this argument I always bring up paintball… You may only be playing 6 guys on the other “team”, but you sure as heck fill that hopper up with 100+ paintballs! Shooting folks on the move shooting back at you is a lot different than shooting paper, even when its just paintballs…

  5. avatar PeterC says:

    I can’t believe he said that.

    1. avatar Katy says:

      Why? Guy likes to carry revolvers and, from his perspective, they meet general capacity needs.

      Contrary to how it’s framed here, he doesn’t express interest in prohibiting, banning, or restricting the semi. He’s just pointing out his disdain for the plastic fantastic.

  6. avatar AlanInFL says:

    Ok, I will do a New York reload instead. Solves that problem of doing a manual reload.

  7. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…and it is just amazing what five or six rounds of quality defensive ammunition”

    Yes.

    But what if I want to carry more. You know…. just in case.

    1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

      I agree with both of you. My six rounds of .22 Magnum I was carrying this weekend will be my exit ticket in most cases. A lot better than nothing. But no way in hell will I be restricted should I decide next weekend that I want to carry 45 rounds or so with my Glock 26 and a couple extra mags.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        This from the guy that mocks people for carrying extra magazines.

        1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          “Should”.

          That’s speculative, not definitive.

  8. avatar jimmy james says:

    Too many local outbreaks of assaults by multiple felons (read small gangs looking for trouble with the oldest miscreant egging on the younger ones to gain street cred). An then there are these random massacre’s by peaceful immigrants that wake up one day and decide to go all jihad on as many unarmed citizens as they can. I was taught double tap and move on 30 years ago. That mindset does not seem to work anymore. Shot until the threat is neutralized and then reload.

    1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

      Dude, your small gang of miscreants will haul straight-up ass at the first sight of a firearm, much less having to fire off one round. C’mon. As for the second scenario, I’ll be hauling ass from the AK wielding muzzies, not unloading 72 rounds out of my pea-shooter.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        “Dude, your small gang of miscreants will haul straight-up ass at the first sight of a firearm,”
        Please cite your source that gangs always flee from the mere sight of a weapon.
        Just a few comments above you wrote about all the ammunition you carried. Is that just to get a workout, because you state here you don’t need any at all.

        1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          Read a little harder: “Should I decide”.

          Internet Boy Scout strikes again.

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Read your own comment. You said you were carrying six rounds. No “should” there. Please explain why you even carry rounds in your gun if you also say you will never need them.
          I’ll ask again, please point to the data that guarantees all gang members attacking will run at the very sight of a firearm.

  9. avatar armed jew says:

    According to documents filed in the Kolbe v Hogan lawsuit against the state of Maryland, there are about 30 – 50 million standard capacity AR-15 magazines in civilian circulation.

    even if someone wanted to ban ownership of these magazines, enforcement would be a joke. I don’t know anyone with an AR-15 rifle with less than a dozen standard capacity magazines.

    1. avatar Mr.Savage says:

      I’m in a ban state and still have several standard ar15 mags, not quite a dozen, but getting there.

      1. avatar Scottlac says:

        Then stop saying it on the internet.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Open civil disobedience to unjust laws is one of the highest forms of patriotism.

    2. avatar Rick the Bear (MA to NH) says:

      Great screen name!

      from another armed Jew

  10. avatar rVLn-4 says:

    My home defense weapon sits on my night stand with one 15 round mag and 6 more mags filled to capacity just in case. Am I paranoid? No, I’m just ready, this is my house, you know?

    1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

      Pretty sure this is a carry article. Home defense is of numerous magnitudes more involved.

  11. avatar Mr.Savage says:

    yup, I’ll still carry 13+1 in my .45, then at least an extra 13, and I live in a relatively peaceful area.

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      Glock 21?

  12. avatar Av Willis says:

    this is the same idiot who was claiming a few weeks ago that birdshot was better than buckshot for home defense, it’s pretty clear that ballistics aren’t his forte.

    1. avatar Judge Dredd says:

      Precisely. Farago is a proven idiot and his ignorance/stupidity knows no bounds of hitting the rock bottom. Every time he posts his reputation as an asshat grows.

      1. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

        Every revolver, single stack and pocket pistol guy/gal on this site agrees with the Sherriff.

        1. avatar Timothy says:

          I sometimes carry a revolver and sometimes carry a single stack. I also always have at least one extra speed loader or spare magazine with me. No way do I believe every shot I take in a stressful encounter is going to be “well placed”. I also don’t believe that I should be limited by what “most” DGU encounters call for. If MOST encounters was enough to limit people, then there should be no carry at all. I’ve never drawn my gun in a defensive fashion, I hope I never have to. Criminals aren’t exclusively solo creatures and high stress tends to degrade accuracy.

        2. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

          I was just pointing out to this fellow that a plurality of the TTAG readership’s revealed preferences agrees with the Sherriff.

        3. avatar Timothy says:

          I think there’s probably a plurality of TTAG readers who agree that most DGUs don’t require more than 6 rounds. I’d be surprised if a plurality of TTAG readers agreed with the sentiment behind the Sherriff’s statement that we ought to limit magazine capacity.

        4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          No, the sheriff here applied his reasoning to all legally armed citizens. I disagree with the sheriff on two points: that every legally armed citizen faces the same risk, and that the government should decide who faces what risk and what self-defense weaponry is appropriate.

          That said, the fact remains that not all legally armed citizens face the same risks. Some, who have determined for themselves that they do face reduced risks, have decided for themselves to carry self-defense weapons of the capacity the sheriff mentioned.

          That’s nowhere near the same thing as the sheriff’s position, which is that no legally armed citizen needs more that that capacity, and that the government should limit capacities for all. There’s no such agreement as you claim.

        5. avatar DrewR says:

          This is for Timothy and Jonathan – if you read the article, the sheriff is not advocating magazine limits, he is justifying his choice to carry a revolver. Out of context the quote looks pretty bad, but in context it is merely his reasoning for the validity of revolvers for self defense.

        6. avatar Hannibal says:

          Pfft since when did folks start actually reading? Much easier to just assume they made a bunch of ridiculous statements.

        7. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Drew,

          I have read the full article, right from the start, before reading, making, or replying to comments.

          Now, how about you go read my comments and other responses? I have thoroughly discredited your and others’ little “go read the article…he never said that…..” apologist routine.

        8. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

          Except the Sherriff wasn’t advocating magazine limits. He is a revolver guy pimping revolvers for concealed carry.

        9. I carry a Glock 19 and a spare mag but I’m not going to disagree with the sheriff.
          357 magnum outperforms 9mm shot for shot and statistically most DGUs do not require more than the capacity of a revolver. But some do. And if I can carry more rounds in a lighter package, why not cover more bases.

      2. avatar DrewR says:

        You do recognize that the quote is from Sheriff Jim Wilson, and not Robert Farago, right? And that the quote of the day is a collection of firearms related quotes that Farago finds interesting and not necessarily things he agrees with? Just curious.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Usually they’re tripe from the gungrabbers.

      3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Damn JD, RF steal your girlfriend or something. If you dislike the site so much why come here?

      4. avatar Robert Farago says:

        It’s a quote. From someone else.

        1. avatar Bob h says:

          Pay no mind to Judge Derp. The rest of us get it, I promise ?

  13. avatar Judge Dredd says:

    Again the author exposes his incredible ignorance/stupidity. It is long past time to ignore the inane rantings of a lunatic.

    1. avatar Eremeya says:

      Do you have anything to back up your position?

      1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

        You realize TTAG is just tossing out some quotes from a person OUTSIDE the TTAG Editorial staff? This happens every morning. These articles are strictly easy warm-ups for the commentors. Red meat for breakfast.

    2. avatar General Zod says:

      There’s nothing as entertaining as an Internet know-it-all crowing about someone else’s “stupidity” while demonstrating a complete lack of reading comprehension skills.

    3. avatar TStew says:

      Did you skip out on reading comprehension or something? These aren’t Farago’s words.

    4. avatar Martin B says:

      “I am a Troll, and I live in a hole.” That’s what you meant to say, right?

  14. avatar Owen says:

    It’s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

    1. avatar Planet_Federal_Way_Twax_City says:

      I always heard it was better to have a gun and need it than not have a gun and not need it.

  15. avatar DrewR says:

    Statistically speaking, he’s probably right, however no one should ever be limited to that amount. If you feel comfortable with five rounds in a J frame, cool, by all means carry that. If you don’t feel comfortable unless you’ve got your G19 and three 33 round backup mags cool, carry that.

    Colonel Cooper said handguns should be comforting, not comfortable. While I would argue they can certainly be both, definitely carry whatever you need to to feel comforted.

    1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

      What took so long to get the requisite Cooper reference in this comment section?

      1. avatar DrewR says:

        I don’t know, I was surprised I was first to the party. Maybe my fellow Cooper fans are still in bed.

        1. avatar Mr. AR says:

          J.M. Browning pissed that Cooper was mentioned 1st

        2. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          Stoner

        3. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          Ayoob

        4. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Kalashnikov aka Uncle Misha. For a crazy commie, he made a damn good gun. (… and yes, he drank deep of the Marxist-Leninist coolaid.)

  16. avatar Mike Betts says:

    Maybe Sheriff Wilson is a long-lost descendant of Brigadier General James Wolfe Ripley, the Union’s Chief of Ordnance during our Civil War. Ripley’s main claim to fame is that he disobeyed Lincoln’s order to begin production of Spencer repeating rifles for Union troops because in his opinion arming the soldiers with a repeater would encourage them to waste ammunition.

    If you took a poll of everyone who was ever involved in a gunfight and asked if any of them ever thought that they had too much ammo, I’d bet the farm that you’d have very few of them who were of that opinion.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      The only times you can have too much ammo is if you are drowning or on fire.

    2. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

      The Civil War logistics system was designed for 3 RPM and could not support a force armed with repeating rifles. It probably would have been hard pressed to keep an force with single shot breechloders supplied.

  17. avatar Tojomojocoltsgottagojoespendintimeinheavenwithhis1911 says:

    Ammo is like money. You never have enough.

  18. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    It’s time for sheriff Wilson to retire and let that cut under his nose heal.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      That’s very funny, Tom. I’m stealing that one. 🙂

  19. avatar Gilbert says:

    Take a wild guess on what is most likely to fail on a semi-auto pistol.
    The MAGAZINE.
    Even if you carry a compact/sub-compact, a spare magazine is cheap insurance.

  20. avatar None says:

    The funniest part is always, “people don’t need this many rounds, unless you’re me or people like me, then we totally need it.”

    Then he tries to look all cool with his 1911.

    1. avatar mrbadnews says:

      LOL,.. Really just think dude is just a 1911 Gun Diva.

      Those yellow specs just scream Gun Range Douche all the way through the internet.

      hashtagwouldnotoperatewithjimmy

  21. avatar George Steele says:

    Nah – a single shot is more than enough – if attacked by multiple felons, I’ll just wait until they are all lined up and shoot them all at once . . . Apparently, this joker doesn’t read statistics reports on gunfights. For well-trained police officers, the average is 3 to 4 shots fired for every hit on a perp; not vital hit, not fatal hit, not incapacitating hit – hit. Even someone drilled to respond to a life-threatening situation can be overcome by adrenaline. And is he saying that the perp will be fair and limit HIS weapon to a six-shooter?

    Walter Mitty can be calm as a cucumber when shooting at silhouettes and punching holes in a paper target – it’s another thing entirely when you have been surprised, are unprepared, in an unfamiliar, dark location where you don’t know if there are other threats, and the target is shooting back. In such a case, counting shots and careful aimed fire is a fantasy – and multiple rounds heading in the assailant’s direction can be very persuasive that an immediate change to another career choice would be optimal. “I’ll take the hundred round magazine for one, Alex.”

    1. avatar JK in TX says:

      LOL “I’ll take the hundred round magazine for one, Alex.” I flushed my nostrils with my soda when I read that.

    2. avatar DrewR says:

      The big difference, and the reason comparing police and armed citizen shootings is rather academic, is that police pursue the threat, whereas armed citizens overwhelmingly are trying to escape the threat. This also skews hit percentages, and is why armed citizens actually have a statistically higher hit percentage than police. Police fire more rounds at greater distances than armed citizens, which leads to more misses. It’s like comparing apples to pears, similar but definitely not the same.

      1. avatar George Steele says:

        More like one variety of apple vs. another. Yes, police run to the scene and a smart civilian runs away. But if you are armed, firing back is a strong deterrent – after all, the perp doesn’t expect that, either. Ever watch a YouTube of a robbery where an armed citizen is present? Usually, the first shot has the perp doing an about face and changing his evening plans – but occasionally, there’s a fight back. In that case, more rounds, not fewer, is the better choice – both because you won’t hit much, under the circumstances, and because hits are not stops. Even a hit with a .45 HP doesn’t mean instant incapacitation. And before I turn tail on a perp and beat feet, I want to know there’s not a trigger being pulled as I leave.

        1. avatar Martin B says:

          And consider your responsibility to the other people that perp will shoot and kill on his way to hospital or the morgue. If you can shut them down, do it. You carry to save lives, not only your own.

        2. avatar George Steele says:

          Martin – a small caveat: the *consequence* of you stopping a perp is that you have saved others. But you don’t have a responsibility to do so – that is the job of the police. I say this because it is dangerous to imply that a citizen should pursue a felon with the *intent* of stopping him. Once the threat to you, or in certain narrowly-constrained circumstances in certain states, to another victim, is over, or is avoidable, your legal authority to confront the perp in most states ceases. At that point, beat feet and call the cops. If you play Dirty Harry and pursue and injure (or kill) a fleeing perp, you could end up in a cell (next to him – IF he ends up in jail). Don’t play vigilante – just get safe, and get out.

  22. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I don’t begrudge anyone that believes they need to carry more ammo to be adequately prepared for their personal situation. Only they can determine that for themselves. For my situation however, it’s a choice between carrying a J-frame or nothing at all. I do carry a speed strip also. I’d prefer to open carry a semi-auto with a round count in the teens but it is what it is.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Wiregrass,

      Can you carry two j-frame revolvers? Ten rounds without any significant time to reload is nothing to sneeze at.

      1. avatar Turd Furgeson says:

        Bingo.
        IWB and ankle holsters

  23. avatar Shire-man says:

    So if you’re unlucky enough to experience one of those “seldom” events screw you.

  24. avatar JK in TX says:

    Sure 4 or 5 rounds will work in most cases, sometimes even just the presence of a defensive gun works. I just don’t want to be in the situation that is the exception to the rule holding an empty revolver that I am attempting to reload with someone still shooting at me.

  25. avatar Sian says:

    “Armed Citizens Don’t Need to Carry More Than Five or Six Rounds”

    Until they do, at which point having 16+17 is not a bad idea at all.

    Until they do, at which point they may have been denied the tools to survive by government rulemakers.

    Criminals don’t need more than five or six rounds, because they freely choose the time, place, and victim. Also, they don’t follow rules like ‘you’re only allowed to carry 10 rounds or less’.

  26. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I pretty much agree. Seems like a few people around here didn’t bother to read the title of the article that quote came from though. It’s the Pros AND CONS of Concealed Carry Revol vers.

    1. avatar Swilson says:

      ^This

  27. avatar Soylent Green says:

    More is ALWAYS better. Especially when there is no real penalty for more, or maybe, at most, only a slight inconvenience.

  28. avatar Joe R. says:

    Citizens don’t need more than five words out of their sheriffs, and two of them are yes or no.

    With a sheriff like that, calling 911 is just like inviting another enemy to your problem.

    1. avatar DrewR says:

      Actually, having read the article he is basically saying not to overlook revolvers as a viable defensive option. Out of context his quote sounds like draconian government overreach, in the article it is just used as a justification for carrying a wheel gun.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      I was going by the quote.

      You know what you really need for your own defense? No. No you don’t. I hope (should the situation arise) that you’re able to discern it, BUT YOU WON’T REALLY KNOW UNTIL AFTER. Let’s not prepare vicariously or anecdotally. Better to believe you have the II Marines coming for you.

      Pretend like you have one shot at it. Bring enough gun, but bring MORE THAN enough ammo.

      I cant stand driving home from the range without 3 full mags on board. I might have given the badge a pass if he said a wheel gun ‘might just’ do the trick.

      1. avatar DrewR says:

        I agree that he clearly didn’t consider how that paragraph reads out of context, as has been illustrated here in the comments. I was merely trying to clear the record. Obviously any restrictions on magazine capacity is wholly unacceptable and I had the same initial reaction.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Yeah, sorry, picture compounded it for me (don’t even know if that one went with the article or if that’s a pic of the sheriff). I don’t like clicking on the supporting article if the “click” is just giving credence and support to something I don’t as determined from previous knowledge or from the TTAG post itself. The pic says YOU don’t need more than 5 or 6 rounds (like in a revolver) for self defense, now stand back as I load a fresh mag and rack my semi-auto.

          IF a revolver is great for self defense, great. Carry 5 loaded on your person.

  29. avatar Hannibal says:

    He’s right. The chances of needing a gun for self-defense are minimal. The chances of needing to fire a gun in self-defense are about on par with being struck by lightening. And the chances of not only needing to fire a gun but needing to do so more than, say, 6 times? A rounding error away from zero.

    But that doesn’t mean I don’t often carry a semi, it just means I’m comfortable often carrying a revolver.

    And it certainly doesn’t mean I think there should be a law preventing other people from carrying a 15 round gun if that works for them.

  30. avatar VillarPerosa says:

    Laugh Out Loud at Old Timers like him.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      No country for old men.

  31. avatar Tal says:

    total garbage.

    1. I carry a gun despite statistics that say I don’t need one

    2. I carry more rounds despite statistics that claim I don’t need them. The sheriff can bet on his own life, not mine.

    3. Averages are worthless as they indicate most people fired more or less rounds.

    4. Police are usually responding to a crime that is in process or has been committed making them the second responders to the victim. I can successfully argue the victim/citizen needs more rounds as he/she is the front line of defense.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Statistically, I’m extremely unlikely to be strick by lightning. That doesn’t mean I’m gonna go stand under a tall oak tree in a thunderstorm. I’ll keep my spare mags, thanks.

  32. avatar Timothy says:

    If everyone carried, that’d be a really true statement. 5 people in a gas station getting held up? That’s a lot of deterrent if everyone carries.

    I think the last number I saw was about 6% nationally had their conceal carry license. 20 people at a bank getting robbed? Probably just you (maybe one other good guy if you’re lucky) with a gun to stop the bad guy(s). I wouldn’t want to be limited to a single revolver and no reload to stop something like that.

    1. avatar Martin B says:

      And nobody robs a bank on their own. Often criminally inclined individuals move about in small packs, and these days they can easily organize a flash mob if they meet more resistance than expected. In some neighborhoods, travel is only safe in an armored car equipped with a minigun. Much better to stick to the better parts of town, where polite thugs will be deterred by a lower level of armament.

  33. avatar Nynemillameetuh says:

    Reading the whole article might help. Here’s a snippet:

    “The double-action revolver is still around and still popular as a defensive tool because it is accurate and reliable. In short, it works. It is not superior or better than the auto pistol; it is just different.”

    Context is a bitch. There were no calls to limit citizens to certain magazines. Just an old man arguing (poorly, in the quote ttag called attention to) for his preferred sidearm.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      I agree. All he states is his OPINION. And you know about those.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      yeah, this is a bit of flame-bait.

    3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Context is indeed a bitch. Unfortunately, you’re the one failing to heed it. Magazine capacity is a major front in the statists’ war against the Second Amendment, fought in courts, legislatures, and regulatory agencies perpetually. No discussion about suitable self-defense equipment for a “legally armed citizen” can make reference to capacity adequacy, ignore that context, and then claim innocence of taking a contrary stance.

      In particular, that context cannot be ignored by readers of a Sheriff’s comments, who draws a distinction between the capacity needs of law enforcement, of which he is a member, and “Walter Mitty-esque fantasy warriors”, for whom he has pure contempt. Problem is, in his view, that includes the vast majority of legally armed citizens, as they’re the ones with standard capacity magazines in excess of what he would deem reasonable.

      The final proof of his antagonism toward an armed citizenry? He neglects to mention that the vast majority of officers go their entire career without ever firing their weapon. By his reasoning, which he wilfully refuses to apply to himself and law enforcement, he shouldn’t even carry a firearm at all. A night stick would suffice.

      So don’t play daft and don’t play the apologist by arguing “he never said that.” He didn’t have to. He said everything around it. Besides, the presence of some things is most obvious by their absence.

  34. avatar rc says:

    The FUDD is strong with this one.

  35. avatar Swilson says:

    Read the article fellas!

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      I read it. I also read the part where he referred to armed citizens, without any limitation, as Walter Mitty-esque fantasy warriors. He mentions the research on rounds actually used in gunfights, then goes on to suggest that only law enforcement officers need more than revolver-capacity. Yet, the research shows that most officers go their entire career without firing their weapon, let alone engaging in a gunfight.

      So what does reading the article reveal? That this is a condescending blowhard with a badge who selectively applies research with a bias toward government and against the general citizenry? Ahhhh…..got it.

      What’s next in your backfiring apologist bag of tricks? Shall we read his entire book, “Civilian Disarmament: This Sort of Thing IS My Bag, Baby!”, or are you done?

      1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

        You get it. The guy is ridiculing anyone with more than 5 or 6 rounds.

      2. avatar DrewR says:

        Paragraphs 1 and 2: I am an old foagie who likes the same things I liked when I was young.

        Paragraph 3: I recognize the benefits of, and utilize some modern technology. “And I like the way that the concealed-carry industry has expanded to find stronger and lighter materials from which to build guns. And, in many cases it has been possible to increase the round count without making the personal-defense gun so heavy that no one would carry it. Not all fads are bad.”

        Paragraph 4: DA revolvers are popular again, still

        Paragraph 5: DA revolvers can be chambered in many calibers

        Paragraph 6: semiautomatic guns used to be less reliable, now they are

        Paragraph 7: guns carried in pockets or on ankles attract lint, and revolvers are probably more reliable in those circumstances

        Paragraphs 8 and 9: firing ultra light revolvers can suck

        Paragraph 10: revolvers generally usually only carry 6 rounds or less

        Paragraph 11: the above quote, with the qualifiers “may be an issue for law enforcement,” “not much of an issue for legally armed citizens,” and “seldom shows more ammunition is needed than.” Furthermore, he makes a clear distinction between “fantasy warriors” and regular armed citizens: “UNLIKE the Walter Mitty-esque fantasy warriors, the armed citizen does not fight pitched battles with the trusty handgun.”

        Paragraph 12: DA revolvers are still effective, but no more so than semiautomatic guns, and here are some books you might like

        Paragraph 13: summation, revolvers can be good defensive guns

        You have to look pretty hard to read anti gun in that.

        The guy is a staff writer for the NRAs Shooting Illustrated, with 224 articles on their website. From the article “Carbines:”

        “My point is this, where defensive carbines are concerned, we live in a time of plenty. The defensive shooter is bound to find one that shoots well for him, meets his needs, and fits his budget. Whether you end up with an AR, an AK, a Mini-14, one of the various Scout rifles, or some other carbine variation, is really immaterial. The test is that you shoot it well, that it is reliable, and that it meets your needs.”

        From “Extra ammo for the Defense Revolver:”

        “We’ve all heard the admonition that you should carry at least one reload along with your defensive handgun. However, if you carry a double-action revolver for defense—and there’s no reason why you shouldn’t—I would suggest that you carry two reloads.”

        And:

        “Even if you carry two revolvers—which may be the fastest reload of all—you need to carry extra ammunition. And it is still a good idea to have at least one speedloader on board along with an extra reload in a belt pouch or speed strip. We know that most gunfights involving citizens are resolved with however much ammo is in the defensive handgun. But it sure doesn’t hurt to hedge your bet a little bit just in case your experience turns out to be the exception to the rule.”

        I’m not even halfway through his article list and I have found no less than three articles specifically advocating carrying 2 to 3 reloads for your defensive gun. He openly advocates keeping a semiautomatic carbine in your vehicle. One poorly worded sentence does not an antigunner make.

      3. avatar DrewR says:

        I am not trying to be an apologist here, if you read my original comment you will see that I was one of the first to say that no governmental limit on magazine capacity is acceptable. I am just pointing out that you have jumped to a wild conclusion about someone’s political beliefs based on less than one tenth of one percent of their available writings on a given subject. Does this guy have a pro law enforcement bias? Of course he does, he was in law enforcement for something like 40 years. Does he advocate restrictions on magazine capacity? No, advocating I pointed out above he clearly does not. This is an old man who is old school with advocating preference for revolvers and 1911s and Mini 14s. It’s like saying your grandpa is antigun because he thinks the eight rounds in an M1 Garand were better than the 30 in an AR. This guy is still advocating carrying a gun or two for self defense and specifically says repeatedly in this very article that revolvers aren’t better or worse than semiautos.

      4. avatar Swilson says:

        J-H,

        Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you on a few things. To begin with, he does not refer to armed citizens as Walter Mitty-esque fantasy warriors. In fact, by throwing “unlike” in, before the Walter Mitty comparison, he seems to be separating “fantasy warriors” from armed citizens.

        Blowhard with a badge? Maybe, maybe not but the article is an opinion piece. Aside from his one line regarding LEO’s needing more rounds, you’re right that statistically speaking, most LEO’s never discharge their weapon. However I did not read anything regarding limiting civilians to only 5 or 6 rounds. As far as citizens not “needing” the type of firepower that LEO’s “need”, I along with most other readers of this site would agree that we should all have the same ballistic capabilities as the cops.

        As far as being an “apologist” for Sheriff Wilson, I don’t really think so. He is stating his personal preference/opinion and unlike many other QOTD, he never said anything about legal, enforced civilian disarmament or round capacity. You and Gray Poseur seem to be inferring a lot from the article, and you could be right that the dude is an a-hole cop who thinks he is above us plebs. But I didn’t see anything in there, other than old man writing about his carry preferences. There are tons of other articles out there doing the same thing, namely, opining how the CC revolver should not be overlooked as a viable option.

  36. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    Context is everything.

    Mr. Wilson didn’t say he thought civilians shouldn’t be allowed to carry more ammunition.

    He stated “research has shown”. If he has actually done his due diligence and is just quoting statistics, his claim probably has merit.

    Evil exists but we can mitigate the odds by avoiding trouble whenever possible. Personally, I take my chances with a tiny pocket pistol and a spare magazine. I’ve never needed to draw a gun.

    Sure, I’d love to carry 30 or more rounds in a full sized pistol or two (and have).

    Most of the time, I value my mobility and select my Bodyguard .380. Is it too small? Maybe. I’m taking my chances.

    Those of you who choose to schlep around more, more power to you.

    1. avatar David K. says:

      Just looking at the FBI and CDC data, the number of cases where shots are fired in self defense vs. the number of times where a gun is employed in any capacity for self defense shows that shots being fired are a statistically small percentage of the total number. And, based on my googling, the number of cases that exceed the accepted FBI statistic of 3 shots is an astronomically rare event.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        “And, based on my googling, the number of cases that exceed the accepted FBI statistic of 3 shots is an astronomically rare event.”
        Please provide any information as to the average number of shots fired in a DGU by non-law enforcement personnel. I would very much appreciate it. I have been looking for a while, and have asked many law enforcement entities, and can find no such data.

      2. avatar burns says:

        The FBI is mostly full of shit about what they tell you with the absolute intent of not scaring the crap out of you, since when did anyone take what the Feds say as gospel. If they told you half of what they are sitting on it would make your head spin.
        Take for instance what just happened with the elections and the Russians.
        I have seen the police give the Feds the names of people who were identified in dozens of armed home invasions, only to be told to leave it alone. They think nothing of giving Murderers and Rapists, immunity from prosecution for the slightest chance of the guy knowing someone bigger who they want more.
        It’s the most corrupt organization in the country and you want to go by their statistics? They have allowed gangs that Kidnapped kids, continue to operate with immunity because they thought someone was going to rat out a very high Organized Crime Family leader. If You believe anything they say, you are setting yourself up for a very big disappointment, the few good agents out there are quickly put into line or transferred to some job, watching chickens lay eggs on the Border of New Mexico. You have to understand that most of what they tell the Public is filtered through their media people who only tell you what they are ordered to tell us in order to keep the public off balance and give them the feeling of being protected.
        It’s disinformation, not what you thought, usually the complete opposite. Hell I trust the CIA more, at least they admit to the crap they do.

  37. avatar David K. says:

    To be honest, he’s right. Look at the FBI self defense data and statistics. The average defensive shooting scenario involves 3 shots, fired at roughly 3 feet, in around 3 seconds.

    There’re a lot of people who are pointing out Isis, and talking about the chance for a terrorist or a crazy guy to start shooting up the place and suddenly produce the need for more ammo, but an honest, logical review of the data we have on shootings in the US shows that the chances of this happening are so astronomically low as to be more rare than a lightning strike (and if you’re preparing yourself for the off-chance of mass shooters, then you really should be also preparing yourself for lightning strikes, snake bites, contracting HIV from kissing, and every other statistically improbabilities).

    Also, even if someone were to face a scenario with lots of attackers, or a well armed attacker, your average civilian is not going to be charging into danger to engage. The average citizen is going to be doing just enough to buy himself a way out and taking care of him/herself and their loved ones. As much as any shooter likes to think they have the ability and such to engage a threat successfully, the odds of doing so are very low, even for trained personnel who are caught in the same scenario.

    Finally, the law in many/most states cover self defense or defense of another only to a point, and legally speaking, if you’re engaging a threat after getting to safety, or are responding to something where no credible threat to yourself exists, without being law enforcement, you’re on some pretty thin legal ice. And that’s not even getting into the debatable intelligence of being a civilian engaging in use of force without proper training, backup, or intelligence on the threat.

    Carry as much ammo as you want to haul around for your gun, as with anything, that’s both your choice and your right. Just don’t confuse your CHOICE to be prepared for scenarios beyond the average probability with either a need or a standard that should be met by other shooters.

    I only care about taking care of me and mine and getting my ass out of the way of bad things. Unless I have a clean and clear ability to do more, once I’m out of it, handling the bad guys is the cops’ job, not mine.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      “The average defensive shooting scenario involves 3 shots, fired at roughly 3 feet, in around 3 seconds. ”
      That is a myth. No such data exists. The FBI data that people cite is only for law enforcement personnel, and only refers to shots where the officer was killed. The study even goes on to point out that some of those shots were “finishing shots” and that previous shots could have been from farther way, but that data was not recorded.

      1. avatar Turd Ferguson says:

        ok, please cite your data

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          I can’t cite the data that I’m claiming does not exist.

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          If you are referring to the FBI data, this is it. https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2012/leoka-home Pay special attention to Table 36, Distance Between Victim Officer and Offender.

  38. avatar Abc123 says:

    If you prepare for the unlilely but possible event of a gunfight you might as well go all the way and prepare for the more unlikely of the unlikely gunfights.

    1. avatar David K. says:

      Okay, so by that logic, one is not prepared unless one is rolling in full battle rattle with body armor, a Carbine at the read, and a hotline to close air support. I mean, come on, there’s a point at which ‘reasonable preparation’ gives way to the absurd.

      1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

        Not around here. Or the prepper sites.

      2. avatar maxi says:

        yeah, i always open carry my M1A2 Abrams and a few Tomahawk missiles just in case…
        Or maybe, maybe, i just meant that having something like a Glock 19 and a second magazine might get you a even longer way than a single stack .380.
        If that’t what you choose to carry i’m fine with that, still better than 95% of the country. You are now definetly prepared for 99% of all bad situations. It’s just that you coul’ve prepared for 99.9% of all possible things that could harm you. But in the end that is a choice that you have to make.

  39. avatar John Eden says:

    You don’t need them until you do. Then you’re S.O.L.

    1. avatar David K. says:

      That’s true of a lot of things, but it doesn’t negate the proposition of reasonable preparations and the point of absurdity.

      1. avatar John Eden says:

        I don’t know. Most modern handguns are “hi-capacity” and just fine — not absurd, by any means.

        But whatever. People should carry whatever they want.

  40. avatar former water walker says:

    Well the clickbait worked…I’ll carry what I want.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      i thought for sure that someone had gone full pro- choice.
      amazing.

  41. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    Anyone with a LE background and training knows that yes, in most real world scenarios, the likelihood of needing more than 5 or 6 rounds is minimal, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a no brainer to choose any modern semi auto pistol of proven reliability and quality over a revolver when size/weight/capacity are factored in. For a shooter with limited experience and/or interest in firearms training, a revolver is a solid choice because a reliable 5 or 6 rounds are better than none. But for just about everyone else, my opinion is it’s always better to have more ammo and not need it than visa versa. When I choose to carry a low capacity handgun it’s strictly about reduced size & weight which is why a 6+1 Kahr CM9 loaded with Federal HST 124gr HP and a spare 8 round mag is my choice for a pocket pistol over a S&W J frame. I love my Colt Python and S&W Model 13 but I would never choose those great revolvers for carry over my Glock 31, Glock 33, Sig P226, or Sig P239.

    1. avatar DrewR says:

      I have always disagreed with the contention that revolvers are good “newbie guns,” as I have yet to meet a newbie who could shoot a DA revolver accurately. Being able to shoot a wheel gun well takes a lot more time and practice than all but the most complex autoloaders. Much as I don’t like them, personally, a midsized striker fired nine like a G19 or XD or similar is a far better choice in my experience. For those who have trouble racking the slide on a nine something like the Walther p380 still beats a revolver for a novice, unless they are dedicated to put in the practice. Just my 2 cents.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        No, he’s right. “For a shooter with limited experience and/or interest in firearms training” is the key. It doesn’t matter that they might _shoot_ an auto better. If they’re not going to put in the time to become proficient in _operating_ an auto they’re far better off (and safer) with the much simpler manual of arms and low maintenance requirement of a revolver.

        1. avatar DrewR says:

          I guess I can see your point, though it is very hard for me to understand that mindset. Not yours, but the one you describe.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          I know people that are not into guns. They own one gun as a just in case. It’s almost always a revolver in the .22 or .38 caliber. They don’t want to know about tap/rack, loading mags or any of that other stuff. They aren’t going to practice or train. And these types of folks are reported on here and in the news with some regularity as having survived their moment of truth and even having killed the bad guy.

          It really is more about mind set than equipment.

        3. avatar unknown says:

          Some of the people I have taught to shoot were in their 70’s and had never fired a gun before. With a Ruger LCR loaded with .38 Spl they catch on real quick, surprisingly so. Having some of the same try a semi auto was a bad experience. (They wanted to see the difference). This is why we have choices, you have to use what you can safely and effectively use. My wife wants no part of semis, but with her SP101 you are going to dead. This is what suits her and she is damn good with it.

  42. avatar Alexander45 says:

    Seldom ain’t exactly never now is it

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      For almost everyone, it is.

      Some people get attacked by sharks. Most people are still willing to go in the ocean.

  43. avatar Kyle says:

    Well, while agree with the basic statement, i think what needs to be added is,

    “it is no place of any government to tell me what I can’t have so far as guns go”

  44. avatar DH2 says:

    “…it is just amazing what five or six rounds of quality defensive ammunition, accurately placed, can do to change the mindset and actions of a miscreant bent on mayhem”

    I wholeheartedly agree with this statement! I just take it to mean that you should earmark 5 or 6 rounds for each miscreant you intend to be prepared for. I usually assume a worst case of 3 threats, so by his reasoning I should carry between 15 and 18 rounds in the mag.

    Now if only he’d just quit arrogantly assuming that he’s “the only one professional enough” before he shoots himself in the foot and winds up with people who are dead because of his opinions.

    1. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      And that arrogance is why ex Sheriff Jim is a legend in his own mind.

    2. avatar DrewR says:

      That wasn’t his claim. In the context of the whole article this was just his (poorly phrased) justification for why he carries a revolver.

  45. avatar Mr. AR says:

    Doesn’t Bond Arms claim 1.75 rounds fired per DGU? Hence a two shot derringer.

  46. avatar fteter says:

    There is no perfect carry capacity for everyone. Too many variations in shooter preferences and potential encounters. Go with what gives you peace of mind.

  47. avatar Gman says:

    Whatever happened to the age old adage, plan for the worst and hope for the best? The LEAST I carry daily is 18+1 +18. Most days I have that plus two more +20, with another 100 rounds stashed in my truck. And I still worry about that being enough.

    1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

      My opinion is you got enough, Gman.

  48. avatar miforest says:

    the sheriff is not wrong, he does say ” most”. carry what you want. Its is just his opinion.
    I don’t take his advice, and carry 2 extra loaded clips for my mouse gun. for a total of 21. for reasons you guys mention about multiple attackers.
    BUT
    I have hunted for nearly half a century. I remember the adrenalin effect of spotting a running buck in the brush when I was young.
    I hunted with my single shot shotgun and my dads automatic. I found that the knowledge that you had instant follow-up shots played havoc with your aiming discipline when using the automatic. so I had to go back the single shot to
    hit anything. after I got older and more experienced I didn’t “spray” and could hit with the automatic .
    not many of us have that experience in personal defense.
    your subconscious mind knows if your shots are limited, and will try to be sure to save your butt with what you got.

    to paraphrase wild bill Hickok “most important , shoot accurately, as quick as you can ” .
    He had lots of experience.

    1. avatar Martin B says:

      And Wyatt Earp (much later) said: “Take your time, quickly”.

  49. avatar Icabod says:

    Twice I’ve had to use my car’s fire extinguisher. After each time I bought a larger replacement. The extinguisher ran out before the fire did. My expectation is that this will apply to a shooting. That’s it’s better to have something left over.

  50. avatar Turd Furgeson says:

    It’s just his opinion, guys and gals, nothing more.

    Even if ISIS creates a crisis, we’d be wanting to get outta “there” asap.

  51. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

    All situational, as I’ve said before. I live in a rather rural area, small town. Carrying locally, a revolver and a speed strip, I don’t feel under-armed. However, going to the city, I move to the semi-auto with an extra magazine. The more people there are in one place, the more your chances of meeting multiple bad guys goes up.

    1. avatar DrewR says:

      I have the same situation. I have a 380 in my pocket with a spare mag everyday in my low crime county of my low crime State, but up the caliber and capacity when I go to any real city.

    2. avatar Martin B says:

      They call that a “target rich environment”.

  52. avatar Gary says:

    With my luck, I’d need more than five rounds to commit suicide.

    1. avatar Martin B says:

      “Five rounds in the back, the worst case of suicide I’ve ever seen”. An actual case, the death of a CIA whistleblower.

  53. avatar rt66paul says:

    Carry what you want. I don’t think the sherrif here was trying to limit us to low cap firearms, he was giving his opinion on revolvers and carry guns. It isn’t easy to ccw a full size handgun, I, for one am glad that I can carry a handgun in my pocket that has 6-8 .380, 9mm mak or 9mm rounds, rather than having a .25 or .32 that carried the same count.
    If I wanted to shoulder carry, or carry on my hip, that would change. I am not very comfortable with a full sized gun IWB, I like a p-64 in my back pocket

  54. avatar RussP says:

    Sure. Absolutely. My doctor, Dr Quackshot, recommended that I carry two 15 round mags at the 9 o’clock position in order to offset the weight of my weapon at 3 o’clock. Wouldn’t want my hips to be out of alignment, placing an unnecessary burden on the healthcare system. I inquired as to why I couldn’t carry just 2-3 rounds in each magazine, and he explained that carrying those extra lead weights would do wonders for my muscle tone and cardio-vascular system.

    1. avatar DrewR says:

      Spare ammo as a posture support, I love it!

  55. avatar Buzz Word says:

    Today’s gangland reality means multiple assailants, therefore, the CCW permit holder needs to carry as many rounds as possible. I’ve had several encounters of this type over the last two years. Now I carry two guns and at least fifty rounds. My everyday CCW: A G23 IWB and a Taurus PT111 G2 in the pocket for backup. One spare mag for each. And a Cold Steel Kabun fixed-blade knife on the weak side hip.

    1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

      You armored up. I moved. Two different solutions to the same problem.

      1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

        Gray, except you think your way is superior. Slight difference in approach and tone.

  56. avatar H says:

    Wow people. Farago authored the article. The quotes are from the Sheriff.

    Steve Fisher points out that the middle of the hallway in a Best Western, Holiday Inn etc. is 50 yds in both directions with no concealment in a door frame. A large school can have a hall 150 yds. A Walmart isle can stretch 250 yds. Perhaps your perp or Jihadi is there and some innocents are in peril. Do with that what you will.

    1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

      Shoot 250 yards in Wal-Mart. Yeah, right. The scenarios in your brain are probably fascinating.

    2. avatar Aaron says:

      I’d like to see the Walmart aisle that goes 2 1/2 football fields in length.

      Maybe you can give us all the address of this spectacularly humongous Walmart.

      1. avatar DrewR says:

        I don’t know, the super Walmart in my relatively small town is probably pushing 200 yards across. I have to go there today, I’ll pace it out and report back, just for the sake of knowing.

      2. avatar DrewR says:

        All right, the longest possible shot in my local super Walmart is about 175 yards, though there is so much stuff in the lanes that you could hardly call it “clear.”

        Personally, if someone starts shooting at the far end of Walmart I am on the phone with the cops and on my way out the door. That is well into the “not my problem zone.”

  57. avatar Warlocc says:

    The last time I was in a confrontation situation, it was with 4 dudes. If things had gone bad, my Massachusetts compliant 10 rounds probably would not have done the job.
    Always, always have more than you need.

    On the other hand, I work security, so this schmuck would probably think I’m in his special excluded group.

  58. avatar M2AP says:

    He’s not entirely wrong statistically, but concealed carry is to be as prepared for an unexpected bad situation as you can.

  59. avatar justin says:

    Its not the average gun fight that you have to worry about. It the outliers that you worry about, the situation where you would find yourself saying “I wish I had that 7th, 8th or 23rd round of ammo.

  60. avatar William Ashbless says:

    Maybe the good sheriff is correct. However, if he wants to carry zero extra ammo then he can decline as is his right.

  61. avatar Brassporkchop says:

    I read this more as “Don’t get hung up on worrying about capacity, use what you got/have/want” more than “Normal law bidding citizens don’t need high capacity magazines, only use a revolver.”

    It’s really level headed advice in a world of “You need x brand pistol in y caliber or you’re just not taking your protection seriously.”

    1. avatar DrewR says:

      Agreed, it’s not a “good for me but not for thee” article, rather a “this is good enough” article.

  62. avatar FlamencoD says:

    He shouldn’t dictate what one should carry. What prompted me to start carrying every day was the rise of ISIS a few years back. My EDC is an XDs-9, with the 7 round mag inserted and the 8 round extended mag in my pocket. I feel those 16 9mm+p rounds (7+1 and 8) are adequate for most situations I’ll encounter. However, occasionally I will instead carry my XD Mod.2 9mm service if I feel additional rounds and sight radius are warranted – usually if I’m going to a crowded event, or if there are heightened security risks due to recent ISIS threats. I have four 16 round mags for the XD but usually only carry one spare. 16+1 and 16 = 33 rounds of 9mm +P. That should be adequate for nearly all events, either to escape (hopefully), lay cover fire during escape, or to incapacitate the attacker if need be.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      where in the article is he DICTATING how many rounds people can carry?

  63. avatar DonS says:

    When someone uses the words ‘most people’ – right there you know they are working an agenda, or trying to please someone else with an agenda, or the big BUT has been edited out –

    Most people don’t need a seat belt. Most people don’t get in an accident when they get in a car. Most accidents are fender benders where no one is hurt.

    Most people don’t need to learn life saving first aid. Chances are they will never need it.

    Most people . . . we can do this all day long.

    Most people don’t need . . . except when they do, they really, really do.

    Most People are not going to kill a bunch of people, why do you need to take away large magazines from most people ? it works both ways

  64. avatar Specialist38 says:

    We all make these risk-managment decisions.

    I agree that 5 rounds will often be enough.

    It’s the un-often time that we have to prepare for to have some peace-of-mind.

    I carry a revolver often…. and have two reloads. (loader and strip)

    When I carry an auto (single stack) i usually have one.reload.

    IF the SHTF…I will always want something bigger, with more rounds, and a crew to back me up.

    What I’ll have is ….. what I have.

    So if you WILL carry something with 15-17 rounds…… then do it.

    The first rule is ….have a gun. How much gun is up to you.

    I don’t think berating people who carry normal pistols that hold lots of rounds if helpful.

    I also don’t think berating people who carry small pistols or revolvers is helpful either.

    I’ve seen a lot of snobbery on both sides of that line in the last week on TTAG.

    1. avatar DrewR says:

      You are absolutely correct, I’ve never understood why people care so much about what other people carry, beyond simple curiosity.

  65. avatar Bernard says:

    I load ‘-1’ the max capacity of a magazine on my Shield simply because it’s easier to load that way. It’s got a magazine disconnect and making a full magazine ‘click’ in place is pretty tough.

  66. avatar ButtHurtz says:

    Anything less than a micro-nuke gernade is just plain stupid.

    A backpack full is even better.

  67. It would seem better to have and not need, than vice versa.

    1. avatar unknown says:

      When I was packing the truck for a coast to coast trip my wife asked why we taking so many items. My response was that no matter what happened, we were prepared. Since a lot of the trip could be and was off the beaten path, if you are not prepared you die. Also said that if we needed everything we took it would have been a very bad trip. As it turned out, 8,200 miles without a single incident. However, we found out that in many places we just missed being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Better to have it and not it than to need it and not have it.

  68. avatar achmed says:

    Number of rounds should not be the primary motivator. But nothing wrong with a gun like a G19 that more or less checks all the boxes including ammo capacity. I like Sheriff Wilson’s writing but occasionally he comes as “old guy that does like newfangled stuff”.

  69. avatar ArkhamInmate says:

    You sir, are old and out of date if that is your belief. Please retire and go out of country. Thanks.

  70. avatar Aaron says:

    Well, he’s probably right. But people should still be able to choose.

  71. avatar Coffee Addict says:

    when I want his opinion I’ll send him a link to a survey. Until then, stfu. I don’t recall signing over my life decision process to another human being who has no downside to making poor choices for me.

    tl;dr just stfu you pompous ass.

  72. avatar Juice says:

    Has there ever been a case of a concealed carrier getting in a sticky situation because they had more than 6 shots?

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Good point, but I’ve heard of anti-gun prosecutors considering having “excessive” extra ammo on the person as evidence that the carrier was looking for a fight. That was used as part of the case against Michael Strickland, who had 5 or 6 magazines on him.

  73. avatar J says:

    He fails to take note of situations like Katrina or the LA riots…..or the fact that alot of criminals travel in packs…….anyways the Fudd alert was triggered as soon as I saw the wheel gun and his outfit.

  74. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    This article is an isolated quote to answer what appears to be a question based on a very specific scenario. What follows in the comments are many attempts to answer a whole other slew of questions which we have zero information on regarding what this guy’s opinion may have been.

    So, generally, ammo capacity is a personal choice. To each their own. I think most of the regulars here and those that are informed (if not experienced) in the ins and outs of gun fights plan for the worst case scenario. Which generally means:

    1. More bullets = better chance of success (ie. less chance of running out of needed ammo)
    2. More tools = more options

    Everyone will have their opinion on what “enough” is, to their own level of comfort based on many personal factors.

    Bottom line: As long as you don’t try to impose your opinions on others, have fun.

  75. avatar Patrick K Martin says:

    Your gunfight will be YOUR gunfight, not the statistical average.
    I am perfectly comfortable carrying a revolver or low-capacity automatic in a caliber at the low end of the major caliber spectrum when I go the to grocery store or the gas-station here in rural Montana. If I go to the city (an hours plus drive away) which has a higher population but still a low crime rate and minimal target for the ‘Aloha Snackbar’ crowd I up-gun to a high-capacity sub-compact automatic with 2 reloads on my person and more ammo in the car. If I go back to my hometown of Detroit (I grew up less than a mile from the Mosque in Dearbornestan) I carry a full-size high-capacity automatic and a long-gun in the car.

    The fact is that if the worst threat you face is some skinny meth-head looking for a fix an empty gun is likely to be just as effective as one with 5 rounds because that person is likely to foul themselves and run at the merest suggestion of violence on your part. If you run into a half-dozen gang-bangers on the city streets then you had better have enough ammo and a sufficient enough weapon to hit hard and stop violent criminals jacked up on Adrenalin, testosterone and inflated egos. The threat level in your area, or the area you need to travel to or through should always be a calculation and it should include the fact that criminals are just as mobile as the rest of us and might see the sleep town off the highway as easy pickings.

    As for shooting at 50 or 100 yards, most of the CCW people I see could barely hit the ground beyond the distance you can hit with a mouthful of spit. I agree therefore that there are a lot of Walter Mitty types out there but having a pistol that carries more than the bare minimum amount of ammo or is effective beyond rock throwing distance is hardly evidence of such. Likewise, thinking that having a .380 pocket-pistol or snubbie revolver and no spare ammo is all you ever need is to view the world with rose-colored glasses. The fact is that most domestic fires can be solved with quick thinking and a glass of tap-water, using that as justification for not owning a fire-extinguisher is foolish.

  76. avatar gordon bruce says:

    Generally I agree with the sheriff. One LEO I know of as been involved in 5 OIC’s, his total rounds expended during contact was 8. My preferred defensive arm is a 1911 with 8 rounds on board of 230 gr hydro-shok, rarely do I carry extra ammo. I know I’m rolling the dice for that 1 in a million chance I’ll need more than 8 rounds. I further reduce my risk by staying on yellow and avoiding potential hazards.

  77. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    BART takeover robbery: 40 to 60 teens swarm train, rob weekend riders
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens-swarm-11094745.php

    Not that it makes too much difference to the topic here. I’ll bet very few, if any of these victims had a gun, or much of any other way to defend themselves. No guns or other weapons reported here (though they probably did have some), but that’s more than 100 hands and feet. Formidable weapons when wielded by young people. Especially by that many of them.

    1. avatar Jeff K says:

      All are surely future DemoCrap voters.

  78. avatar HappyJoe says:

    I hope he doesn’t visit Oakland.

    OAKLAND — At least seven people were robbed at the Coliseum BART station Saturday night when a group of between 40 to 60 youths invaded the station and began targeting victims on a train and the platform, authorities said Monday.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/24/passengers-on-dublin-bound-train-robbed-by-dozens-of-youth-at-oakland-bart/

  79. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    The truth is that research on what is required to win an average gun fight – either by law-enforcement or by a good guy carrying a concealed weapon – is very thin and what little is there is fairly dated.

    1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

      That and trying to determine an average for ammo capacity for something as unforeseeable and dynamic as a DGU is simply foolhardy and liable to get good people killed.

      1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

        +1

  80. avatar Andrew says:

    Clickbait title. That is not what the gentleman said. He said in most cases a revolver HAD HELD enough rounds for defense. He did not say anything about limiting ammo in pistols. At least not in the text shown.

  81. avatar Lhstr says:

    I have seen Leo’s empty there guns and empty them again to the bad guy on a porch, lets see 6-8 officers shoot each 15 rds= 90 rds on a porch?, so what if a citizen has a car load of BG’s on him, duh shoot with 5 rds, yeah right. You can do that, I’m not that great it might take me a few more! Have a safe day, watch your six.

    1. avatar gordon bruce says:

      Just guessing but that example is probably from NYPD patrol officers. I’ve read more than one study showing NYPD hit factor at less than 20% going back 30 years, (patrol officers). I assume their SWAT and JTTF officers perform up to standards.

  82. avatar SkipD says:

    Cool story.

    When I was pistol wiped in the back of the head at the culminate of the countdown to what I was told would be my execution, there were 4 masked teenagers.

    Nice concealed carry tip, but no thanks. I’ll let my belt strength and cover garment determine what I carry – not an elected official.

  83. avatar adverse4 says:

    BS.

  84. avatar strych9 says:

    My problem with his argument is that it will be used against anyone who chooses to carry more.

    Granted, he’s not making an argument for limits or anything like that but his “professional” stature will be used by others who want mag limits when they point to him as an “expert” to bolster their argument that people don’t need to carry more than X rounds.

    Oh, yeah, also it amuses me that this just happened today: 40-60 perps…

    http://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens-swarm-11094745.php

  85. avatar M Godwin says:

    This thread has gone on long enough. YOU ARE ALL NAZIS.

    M Godwin

    1. avatar adverse4 says:

      Having a bad day?

      1. avatar Lotek says:

        He’s just invoking the law

    2. avatar Tiger says:

      Nazi’s? Strange, My U Boat blocking your parking Space?

  86. avatar Jeff says:

    If you’re gonna subscribe to the “seldom needed” mantra, then you don’t need to carry a gun at all. I bet the good sheriff wouldn’t go that far.

    1. avatar Jeff K says:

      These videos confirm two things for me; being armed ALL the time and NOT living in these cess pools of liberalism.

  87. avatar mark s. says:

    Could not disagree more with a post than this one . Americans need to carry now more than ever before as a stop gap between a ‘ nut lone wolf ‘ , a group of ‘ nut religious zealots ‘ or an actual ‘ terrorist cell ‘ that has decided to shoot up your mall on the day you are buying a pair of socks , or some ‘ Gun Free Zone ‘ and the police and or security personal who are usually targeted first .
    So after I empty my 6 , 8 , 10 rounds , it is then I need to cower under a desk with the rest of the sheep ?
    No , I carry 58 rounds of zingers every time I leave my house .
    I think every American citizen that is responsible enough to carry , at this time in our history , should do so . America is under attack , back room plans are being drawn up daily of ways that may create fear ( terror ) and hurt our economy or make Americans want to appease cries for Sharia Law and other barbarous rituals and our response should be simple and point forward , just as it was after 9/11 , we need to outwardly show our resolve . We are not Tombstone , Deadwood or Dodge City of the old west , we do not need to check our guns before we come into town , we need to strap them to our bodies and say , not here , not my neck of the woods .

    1. avatar Tiger says:

      You need to get some fresh air….. The world is not in Mad Max mode yet.

  88. avatar Martin B says:

    The flip side to all of this, as I’m sure the good Sheriff will agree, being an honorable man who has achieved more and done more for his community than 99% of keyboard warriors here, is that standing above the smoking remains of a felon with fifteen holes in his body that he wasn’t born with, will probably fail to convince the attending law representatives that this was indeed a defensive shooting. If you think you won’t spend more on lawyers than ammunition after such an incident, you are naive in the extreme. Enjoy your time in jail.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      The obvious chip on your shoulder made me want to disagree, but I can’t.

  89. avatar Tiger says:

    I think too many folks have Visions of being John McClaine in “Die Hard?” My last company Xmas party was not in the Nakatomi Building & I had zero need to drop a body out a window to get a cop. Would I prefer to have a Beretta 92f over A six gun in this, “What If?” Uh, yeah…… Yippee Ki yeah. 99% of the time we are not facing Hans Grubber however. So Sheriff Wilson is in that broad context correct..

  90. avatar DVK9 says:

    This is where I drag out my 1911 with all 7 rds.
    I also carry 2 mags in reserve.
    If I can stop the threat in 7 or less great if not I will use the backup mags to help me disengage.

    For CC here in Texas in the summer, I carry a Ruger SP101 and an extra speed loader.
    Otherwise it is a full size 1911.

    For me a wheelgun is as good as or better than a semi. Shootin +P+ .38’s or .357 as a LEO was more than enough with a couple of speed loaders.
    In the military it was a .38 combat masterpiece with dump boxes.
    So much range time ingrained into me how to shoot, dump, reload and shoot again just as fast as my 1911.

  91. avatar Ruger58 says:

    I carry 12+1 comfortably year round. If I ever got into a situation where I needed to use my weapon and only needed 1-6 rounds, then I’d have the remaining rounds left. I do practice a 25 yard head shot regularly, but most of my training is 3-10 yards. To each his own…what ever makes one comfortable…

  92. avatar Jim Macklin says:

    I 1955, the lone robber was the model. Home invasions were unheard of. Gangs played baseball.
    Today the model is ISIS, home invasions, flash mobs and street riots.
    Maybe 5 rounds in a Chief Special was enough, maybe it will be enough.
    But if you’re going by what might be, going unarmed might be enough too. Why carry a gun at all, you might go years and never use it, even to shoot a rabid dog.
    If you shoot a rabid dog these days some wacko will want to charge you with animal cruelty and illegal discharge.
    Personally, unless the potential threat gives advance notice of date, time, place and numbers I will carry my 45 and four spare magazines.
    If I expected trouble, I wouldn’t go there as a private individual. Cops and soldiers have to go. Cops have back-up officers and handguns, rifles and even machine guns. Soldiers have a normal load of 180-400 rounds, a radio and air cover.

  93. avatar OngoingFreedom says:

    #clickbait

  94. avatar Mikial says:

    Sheer nonsense. Most LEO encounters involve a lot more than 6 rounds. Many citizen encounters do as well. Personally, I’d rather have 17 and only need 6 than have 6 when I needed 10 or more. Multiple assailants, uncertain light situations, an encounter on the road. I like revolvers to shoot at the range and have a couple around the house, but for personal defense out and about, I carry something with more than 6 rounds.

  95. avatar Murphy's too optimistic! says:

    Shot placement is the rule of survival for most of us. Being able to hit what you aim at is important! Many, many people think that having seven or eight loaded magazines available makes up for a lack of accuracy.

    Sheriff Wilson seems not to be one of those, and probably can shoot quite well. If push comes to shove, none of us would mind having his back to ours, I expect. Would he mind us having our back on his? I do not know.

    My friends and I get to the range at least two times a week. Almost all of us are certified instructors and help out each other. We are divided between revolvers and semi-automatics. My choice is an eight-shot .357.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email