Magazine Capacity An Asset In A Gunfight

[austin]

I posted it thinking that it was interesting read, and didn't want it to start a range war over the amount you carry or what type of gun you use. I will be taking his classes in less 1week and it was sent to me as part of the web site.

So if its going to start this type of problems I will not post any of his articles any more.


Doc

No, keep posting them.

[austin]

Frankie wrote:

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

Indeed it would, do you have any?

Here's an exerpt from an Ed Lovette article in the FEB 2008 issue of "Combat Handguns Magazine" titled, "Citizen Involved Assaults - Threat and response patterns you need to know!".

Number of shots fired by AC ("Armed Citizen"): Frequently just 1 but an average of 3.

Ed stated that he got this information from a compilation of what he "had on hand". He said he would provide sources in the next issue, but he did not. So it's not like it's hard, quantifiable data, but it's more data than has been provided so far by the proponents of carrying a lot of ammo.

But since we agree on that, let's get past it and try to figure out what else the real world can teach us.

The lowest round count I can think of is zero.

I heard a statistic that most BGs are deterred just by the sight of the pistol.

This proves we should not carry a loaded gun.

Or, like Barney Fife, you can carry a bullet in your pocket.

As for realism -

How about getting some airsoft pistols and a training buddy and see what works for you?

Here is what I discovered from real-world testing.

1. If you stand there and duke it out, you will get shot.
2. If you MOVE and then engage, you will probably not get hit, but will shoot at least two rounds if not seven into him.
3. If there are multiple attackers, then you will expend another 3-5 into each of the others.
4. If they decide to shoot it out with you, then you will run dry and will require a reload.
5. The most likely body part to get shot is your support hand/arm. You will then not be able to manipulate your weapon very well.


--

The real question is "How do I survive an encounter?"

Define the possible encounters:

One guy who is a coward.
One guy on meth.
Psychopath who intends to kill you.
Multiple cowards.
Multiple Meth-heads.
Multiple Psychopaths.

Are you alone?
With your family?
Your kids?

Are you surprised?
Or saw it coming and are prepared?

These combinations define your responses and your tools.

In only one of the cases above - the lone coward whom you saw coming, will one or 3 rounds be sufficient. In the other cases, you will need more to solve the problem.

For me, I prepare for the worst case which is multiple psychopaths while I am with my child and his friends. If the encounter I run into is the lone coward, then he is going to have a very bad day. If its multiple attackers, then I will have the tool to help me prevail.

[frankie_the_yankee]

As for realism -

How about ................

For realism I would study real world self defense incidents involving CHLs. Airsoft and similar training is only as relevant as the scenario might happen to be. And the psychology will, of necessity, be vastly different. I find accounts of real world CHL and/or armed citizen self defense incidents written up by Massad Ayoob and others to be a valuable resource.

News accounts of actual incidents of criminal assault are also informative if you can discern the truth through the almost inevitable errors and sloppy reporting.

An example that comes to mind is the home invasion / murder a few months ago in CT. Two armed hardened criminals (don't know if they were psychos or cowards, but they had substantial records) broke into an upscale home while the family was sleeping. The victims were unarmed. At one point, the wife was forced to go to the bank (with one of the criminals) and make a large withdrawal. She managed to get a message through to the bank teller. But in the end, the husband was beaten and left for dead, the mother and two daughters were raped and killed, and the house was set on fire.

Another, even better, incident is the rampage shooting at the New Life Church in CO that took place a month or so ago. Jeane Assam stopped the heavily-armed shooter in his tracks with a few well placed shots from her handgun. I believe that after being wounded, he finished himself off.

Edit to add link:

With a little searching I found this news story.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14 ... etail.html

Apparently, Ms. Assam fired 10 rounds at the BG. This is a good data point.

I think incidents like this can be studied for "lessons learned", both as to what weaponry would be optimum to have and what other things (like alarms, dogs, etc.) might have been done to tilt the balance more towards the GGs.

The real question is "How do I survive an encounter?"

Define the possible encounters:

One guy who is a coward.
One guy on meth.
Psychopath who intends to kill you.
Multiple cowards.
Multiple Meth-heads.
Multiple Psychopaths.

Personally, I think there are many possible types of encounters that you have left out. But I can see where it might get tedious to list them all.

One that comes to mind is, you are at a mall that has been targetted by an 8 man Al Qaeda death squad. You and your party are wearing articles of clothing that clearly identify you as members of the Jewish faith. The BGs are armed with SMGs, RPGs, hi-cap handguns, suicide bomb vests, and an anthrax bomb. In addition, they are wearing body armor. They see you and are frothed into such a frenzy that they forget about their primary mission and target their whole arsenal on you and those in your group.

With outstanding situational awareness, you observe them burst through the entrance to the mall and charge straight at you.

How many rounds do you think you might need then?

Are you alone?
With your family?
Your kids?

Are you surprised?
Or saw it coming and are prepared?

These combinations define your responses and your tools.

In only one of the cases above - the lone coward whom you saw coming, will one or 3 rounds be sufficient. In the other cases, you will need more to solve the problem.

It's hard for me to understand how you can know this. Somehow, I think that the reality is a bit more complex than you have described it to be.

For me, I prepare for the worst case which is multiple psychopaths while I am with my child and his friends.

I'm curious. How many CHL encounters of this type have you studied?

If the encounter I run into is the lone coward, then he is going to have a very bad day.

Unless he just blows the CHL away before he knows what's going on.

If its multiple attackers, then I will have the tool to help me prevail.

And prevail the "properly equipped" CHL might, unless the multiple psychos just open up on him and blow him away.

At this point, I leave it to the experts.

[austin]

As for realism -

How about ................

One that comes to mind is, you are at a mall that has been targetted by an 8 man Al Qaeda death squad. You and your party are wearing articles of clothing that clearly identify you as members of the Jewish faith. The BGs are armed with SMGs, RPGs, hi-cap handguns, suicide bomb vests, and an anthrax bomb. In addition, they are wearing body armor. They see you and are frothed into such a frenzy that they forget about their primary mission and target their whole arsenal on you and those in your group.

If its multiple attackers, then I will have the tool to help me prevail.

And prevail the "properly equipped" CHL might, unless the multiple psychos just open up on him and blow him away.

At this point, I leave it to the experts.

So how does making fun of me prove you are an expert at recognizing "expert" advice?

How do you KNOW the experts are right or just full of bull?

I'd rather learn from trying things out in realistic training than read what some "expert" has written.

I'd rather my confidence in my weapon system and my ability to use it be based upon reality-based training, not what I have read.

I'd prefer to KNOW I can hit a real target in a real fight, than have a false confidence that comes from punching holes in paper.

I'd prefer to prioritize my practice based upon what can be reasonably expected by breaking those scenarios into categories then working through those categories to reach possible solutions, rather than read about it.

If you want to read gun magazines, I have stacks and stacks of them, too. I can mail them to you if you'd like. I have little use for them now days.

OTOH, anytime you want to bring yourself or a whole squad and try some things out with realistic training against an adversary and open yourself up to the real world, PM me. I am free most weekends. I love to train.

Until you do the realistic training, you will have a very, very limited skill set and understanding and will have the biases that go with it.

[frankie_the_yankee]

So how does making fun of me prove you are an expert at recognizing "expert" advice?

No one is making fun of anyone. Didn't you notice that I posted a link to a news report stating that Jeanne Assam fired 10 rounds in the act of stopping the rampage shooter at the New Life Church? I did this in the interests of presenting a fair argument, even though that particular data point supported your position more than it did mine.

Sure, I presented a somewhat extreme example of a "scenario" that you hadn't covered in your somewhat catagorical statements. Chalk it up to a little sarcasm and a little tongue in cheek.

BTW, if terrorists can emulate the final scene of Clancy's book "Debt of Honor" where a 747 was intentionally crashed into the Capitol Building during a special joint session of Congress, they could also think to start shooting up shopping malls as depicted in his later novel titled, "The Teeth of the Tiger". So the scenario I set forth was neither original with me nor was it outside the bounds of the possible, IMO.

Interestingly, in the novel, the terrorists attacked several malls in different parts of the country at the same time. The attacks in "gun free zones" (i..e. "may issue" states) resulted in many casualties. But the attack in Utah was nipped in the bud by armed citizens, just as the one in the DC area was stopped by Jack Ryan Jr. and an "associate",both of whom happened to be armed (though only one was fully legal).

How do you KNOW the experts are right or just full of bull?

I'd rather learn from trying things out in realistic training than read what some "expert" has written.

The "realistic taining" that you describe may be terrific in developing high level shooting skills. Things like being able to shoot at moving targets, shoot while moving yourself, shoot one handed, or with your weak hand, learning to seek cover and other related skills are certainly good to have in any real world confrontation.

So I say, the more training the better.

If I didn't have certain physical limitations to deal with, I would do more of this stuff myself, because IMO besides being valuable as training most of these exercises are a heck of a lot of fun to do. As it is, I do what I can, which is not as much as I would like.

If you want to read gun magazines, I have stacks and stacks of them, too. I can mail them to you if you'd like. I have little use for them now days.

The thing is that the training scenarios themselves are only as realistic as the judgement of the person who created them. So while the training scenarios might be great for developing the skills needed to deal with multiple psychos attacking you and yours, I do not think they have very much to teach us as to the types of threats we are likely to face, where and when we might be likely to face them, and how criminal attackers actually act.

For this, I happen to believe that studying actual case histories of armed citizen threat encounters and shooting incidents is most valuable. These are historical accounts of the "real world". They are not contrived, as training scenarios inherently must be. They are recounted and analyzed by "experts", whose analysis may be astute or faulty (for which the reader can judge for himself), but the historical aspect is what it is in any case. Other sources are media accounts of such encounters, though these require more effort on the part of the reader to separate fact from sloppy reporting. It's usually necessary to read multiple accounts of the same incident to get an accurate picture.

So I'm saying that if you want to know what happens in the real world, study what happens in the real world. I believe it is inaccurate to mischaractrerize or belittle this aspect of "training" by dismissing it as simply liking to read gun magazines.

OTOH, anytime you want to bring yourself or a whole squad and try some things out with realistic training against an adversary and open yourself up to the real world, PM me. I am free most weekends. I love to train.

Yeah well 5 or 10 years ago I might have taken you up on your "challenge". These days, unfortunately, I'm not up to it. But I say enjoy yourself while you can, because it won't last forever. And as to how it relates to the real world, pardon me if I am skeptical for the reasons I have cited above. For one thing, it's not very often that I travel with a "squad". I live in Texas, not Kandahar.

FWIW, a couple of years ago I did one week of volunteer work with The Minuteman Project. We were divided up into 3 man observing teams, working mostly at night. Some of our posts were only accessible via 4WD and were as much as 4 or 5 miles from the nearest road. Forget cell phone service or 911. It was very obvious to me that out there like that, we were on our own. Our only outside contact was via GRS radios.

So you know what? I carried my night sight equipped Colt Commander with 3 extra mags and a couple of 20 round boxes of Federal Hydra-Shok ammo besides. (The rule was "no long guns", or I would have brought along my Mini-14.) I figured there was no telling who or what we might run into out there. Just instinct on my part.

As it happened, the whole week turned out to be a pretty quiet and peaceful affair.

Until you do the realistic training, you will have a very, very limited skill set and understanding and will have the biases that go with it.

Better study the "real" real world once in a while so you don't get too wrapped up in some fantasy.

[Deaf Smith]

Frankie,

You talk about 'real life' studies. Where do you get your 'real life' studies? How detailed are these 'studies'?

See people like Tom Givens, of Rangemaster, has had almost 50 of his students in shootouts. I don't mean altercations, but actually had to use lethal force. These I know about, but are there any other 'studies' you know of that we don't? Is this SOP9? Or NRA 'Armed Citizen' newspaper clippings, or what?

I just kind of wonder where your studies come from.

As for FOF, if done right they can be very enlightning, and skill sets learned at such places like ECQC (SouthNarc), or Gabes ECQG (Extreme Close Range Gunfighting), or Givens Dynamic Marksmanship all hone one's skills (if you can shoot to begin with.) Needed? Maybe.. maybe not. Give you more skills, oh yea.

Long time ago I made martial arts and shooting my advocation. Such as sport TKD and IPSC. When the CHL law was passed in Texas I started getting a bit more interested in the SD aspects, branched out into such as boxing and JKD. Went to IDPA to be more SD orientated. Have I ever needed it after all these years? Not since 92.

But I feel gaining more skill is always better that to not. It gives you more options. And it beats the boob tube.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Frankie,

You talk about 'real life' studies. Where do you get your 'real life' studies? How detailed are these 'studies'?

No. I talk about studying real life case histories.

I just kind of wonder where your studies come from.

There are no "my studies." Case histories are where you find them. They might include Armed Citizen accounts, incidents reported in the media, "The Ayoob Files" and others. You mentioned Tom Givens. I have not heard of him, but I am intrigued from your brief account. Do the 50 incidents you refer to involve non-LEO CHLs or were they LEO encounters? Has he published any books or articles on his students' experiences? If so, this would be something I would be interested in.

As for FOF, if done right they can be very enlightning, and skill sets learned at such places like ECQC (SouthNarc), or Gabes ECQG (Extreme Close Range Gunfighting), or Givens Dynamic Marksmanship all hone one's skills (if you can shoot to begin with.) Needed? Maybe.. maybe not. Give you more skills, oh yea.

For building shooting skills, sure. I stated this in my last post. And shooting skills certainly come in handy if one finds one's self in a gunfight.

But training scenarios are of necessity, contrived. Real world case histories are, by there very nature, "real." If you're trying to argue that you can learn more about the real world by running through made-up scenarios than you can by studying the ACTUAL real world, then all I can say is good luck with that argument.

Long time ago I made martial arts and shooting my advocation. Such as sport TKD and IPSC. When the CHL law was passed in Texas I started getting a bit more interested in the SD aspects, branched out into such as boxing and JKD.

That's great. But what does it have to do with the topic? ("Magazine Capacity an Asset in a Gunfight")

But I feel gaining more skill is always better that to not. It gives you more options. And it beats the boob tube.

I agree.

And I also believe that, "knowledge is power."

I recognize both the value and the limitations of FOF training. But for some reason you and some others seem to place little value on studying real world incidents. ("..reading magazines..", "..newspaper clippings...", etc.) I don't quite understand why.

You don't see me characterizing FOF training as a lot of rolling around in the dirt playing glorified paintball games while wearing some kind of "tactical" pinky ring.

Far from it. I have characterized FOF training as not only valuable, but a lot of fun too, and lament that my current physical condition prevents me from indulging in it as much as I would like to. These days, the occassional IDPA match is about all I can deal with. Lucky for me that I have my own range where I can practice some stuff at my convenience that most public ranges and gun clubs frown upon (except at matches) like shooting while moving, night shooting, and stuff like that.

But at this point I think we will have to agree to disagree, as I have explained my position just about every way that I can think of.

[CompVest]

Chris Bird in his new book "Thank God I had a Gun" recounts several real cases. Very well done.

IMO to be a really well rounded trained CHL you need both paper and practice. Lanny Bassham, World and Olympic Champion shooter, trained for almost one year by doing dry firing and mental imaging as he was unable to get to a range for live fire practice. He had of course done a whole lot of live fire training and practice, but it does show what your mind is capable of. He has some excellent books and videos just do a search on his name.

By the very nature of live fire practice you will be limited to only a few scenarios. (Time invloved for set up and actually running the scenario and cost of ammo.) These "live" scenarios allow you to actually see and feel what is needed to perform well under pressure and learn your strengths and weaknesses. Reading and playing "what if" mind games can give you a much wider and far more numerous scenarios to "practice" in. Mind games can be done almost anywhere and at little cost.

The other plus gained by reading what the experts say is you don't have to reinvent the wheel. Quite frankly I like learning from others. If I can prevent myself from getting a booboo from reading about what happened to someone else well...

[Charles L. Cotton]

Chris Bird in his new book "Thank God I had a Gun" recounts several real cases. Very well done.

IMO to be a really well rounded trained CHL you need both paper and practice. Lanny Bassham, World and Olympic Champion shooter, trained for almost one year by doing dry firing and mental imaging as he was unable to get to a range for live fire practice. He had of course done a whole lot of live fire training and practice, but it does show what your mind is capable of. He has some excellent books and videos just do a search on his name.

By the very nature of live fire practice you will be limited to only a few scenarios. (Time invloved for set up and actually running the scenario and cost of ammo.) These "live" scenarios allow you to actually see and feel what is needed to perform well under pressure and learn your strengths and weaknesses. Reading and playing "what if" mind games can give you a much wider and far more numerous scenarios to "practice" in. Mind games can be done almost anywhere and at little cost.

The other plus gained by reading what the experts say is you don't have to reinvent the wheel. Quite frankly I like learning from others. If I can prevent myself from getting a booboo from reading about what happened to someone else well...

Reading is valuable to gain knowledge, but it doesn't build skills. Force-on-force training is valuable and I don't see any limitation by "staging" the fight. The military and SWAT teams do it all the time. I also find it highly unlikely that a "real world" event would deviate in any significant way from practice scenarios so as to make them useless.

Chas.

[Lumberjack98]

I posted it thinking that it was interesting read, and didn't want it to start a range war over the amount you carry or what type of gun you use. I will be taking his classes in less 1week and it was sent to me as part of the web site.

So if its going to start this type of problems I will not post any of his articles any more.


Doc

I would say that you should keep posting them. Look at all the discussion it has lead to. The main thing is that it prompts you to think about it.

Great job Doc!

[fm2]

[quote="frankie_the_yankee]
There are no "my studies." Case histories are where you find them. They might include Armed Citizen accounts, incidents reported in the media, "The Ayoob Files" and others. You mentioned Tom Givens. I have not heard of him, but I am intrigued from your brief account. Do the 50 incidents you refer to involve non-LEO CHLs or were they LEO encounters? Has he published any books or articles on his students' experiences? If so, this would be something I would be interested in.[/quote]

Here is Tom's site.
http://www.rangemaster.com
From what I remember, most of the incidents were CHL folks.

[quote="frankie_the_yankee]
For building shooting skills, sure.[/quote]
Well, there's a little more to the ECQC class than shooting.


[quote="frankie_the_yankee]
But training scenarios are of necessity, contrived. Real world case histories are, by there very nature, "real." .[/quote]
Well, it depends on how the sceanrio is designed. Some scenarions are designed with the same layout as a real incident. Some FOF scenarios can feel very "real".


[quote="frankie_the_yankee]
If you're trying to argue that you can learn more about the real world by running through made-up scenarios than you can by studying the ACTUAL real world, then all I can say is good luck with that argument.[/quote]

There are different kinds of learning. Experiential and learning by doing, offers a different kind of envolvement and opportunity for immediate feedback. Reading about real events can also be benificial, but sometimes there are many important details missing in the reports. One can study about mountain climbing, but that doesn't mean they can climb one. You have to test to understand.

[Deaf Smith]

Frankie,

Things like 'The Armed Citizen', or newspapers have the faults that a)the reporters don't get alot right, b) give only the jest of what happened, and c)do not interview all sides of the altercation. That is why using them helps a bit, but not alot.

Now ECQC is part shooting, part H2H, and part learning what indicators are given off by those who would do harm. These indicators help tip you off as to what is about to go down (if it goes down at all.) This is what FOF is all about. Oh, and SouthNarc, well if you know his bio, he really studies 'real life' incidents.

RMCAT, in Colorado,is another place totaly geared to learning how to handle such stiuations (either by force or by de-escaltion methods.) The guy who runs it, well he to has kind of studied real life incidences. He is also more into learning how to fight when scared (yes scared) and how to keep fuctioning even when you fell that way. I think Jim Wagner has a simular type school.

Rangemaster, as posted above, is Tom Givens. At the NTI, as well as at the Polite Society, he gave a discourse on seven of his students that were in shootings. Detailed discourse. He also has mucho others (yes over 50.)

Many of the classes I've been to stress more than just shooting skills (but they all admit, it never harms to be a good shot.) Usually, unless you are violating the 3 stupids, there will be tip offs of what is about to happen IF you look for them. This is, to me, just as valuable as shooting skills. The LFI-1 class I took in was 44 hrs long and 1/2 of it was law! So even knowning the law and what to do before, during, and after any confrontation is also important. Lots more than just shooting!

The reason I list some of my experience is because I to study what happens on the street. And while I do find interest in news articles, I find training helps much more.

Like they all say, it never hurts to be a good shot (or fighter.) But there is more to it than that.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Deaf,

You mention RMCAT, Givens and others who study real life incidents and then teach others. So what's wrong with me studying such incidents myself, and encouraging others to do so?

I have stated that I recognize the value of FOF training, and that I also recognize the value of studying real life incidents. Each has its place and its own benefits and limitations.

FWIW, I am also an LFI-1 graduate. If you're interested, I shot the 3rd highest score in my class with a Ruger SP101. Ayoob was walking back and forth kidding the other students (most of whom had 1911s or Glocks) saying stuff like, "..that guy with the snubbie over there is kicking your fannies..." He tried out my gun and liked it so much he used it to shoot the course himself. (He shot a perfect score with it.)

[Nazrat]

Chris Bird in his new book "Thank God I had a Gun" recounts several real cases. Very well done.

IMO to be a really well rounded trained CHL you need both paper and practice. Lanny Bassham, World and Olympic Champion shooter, trained for almost one year by doing dry firing and mental imaging as he was unable to get to a range for live fire practice. He had of course done a whole lot of live fire training and practice, but it does show what your mind is capable of. He has some excellent books and videos just do a search on his name.

By the very nature of live fire practice you will be limited to only a few scenarios. (Time invloved for set up and actually running the scenario and cost of ammo.) These "live" scenarios allow you to actually see and feel what is needed to perform well under pressure and learn your strengths and weaknesses. Reading and playing "what if" mind games can give you a much wider and far more numerous scenarios to "practice" in. Mind games can be done almost anywhere and at little cost.

The other plus gained by reading what the experts say is you don't have to reinvent the wheel. Quite frankly I like learning from others. If I can prevent myself from getting a booboo from reading about what happened to someone else well...

Reading is valuable to gain knowledge, but it doesn't build skills. Force-on-force training is valuable and I don't see any limitation by "staging" the fight. The military and SWAT teams do it all the time. I also find it highly unlikely that a "real world" event would deviate in any significant way from practice scenarios so as to make them useless.

Chas.

When I was in the Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security team in the USMC, we used paintballs for force on force instruction in close quarters battle and house clearing. Simunition was also used where we would shoot 9mm rounds with the paint tip. Let's just say you are much more aware of your surroundings after getting hit with a few dozen paintballs by the instructor that told you where to look for him.

I learned a lot about riding doors and looking at air vents after my squad was slaughtered in a paintball simulation by 3 instructors who merely hid in the air vents and stood behind doors.

Hours of classroom instruction are great for knowledge. Getting hit in the face with a paintball is great for actual learning.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I learned a lot about riding doors and looking at air vents after my squad was slaughtered in a paintball simulation by 3 instructors who merely hid in the air vents and stood behind doors.

Hours of classroom instruction are great for knowledge. Getting hit in the face with a paintball is great for actual learning.

Sure. But learning what?

The title of this thread is, "Magazine capacity an asset in a gunfight". The context is the extent to which carrying extra ammo is a good idea for non-LEO CHLs and/or how often having extra ammo might make a difference in an actual encounter.

As I said in an earlier post, as an armed citizen, non-LEO, I don't much travel in "squads". So I don't know that exercises such as you describe, while great fun and of great value for those who do operate in squad-sized units, have much relevance to someone like me and what I may encounter while picking up a newspaper at the local quiclie mart, and how much ammo I might need.

At the same time, the FOF training is great for developing shooting skills, and as Deaf pointed out, for learning to pick up warning signs of impending trouble and things like that. But the number of rounds needed in a given scenario depends on the design of the scenario itself. It could be anywhere from 1 to a couple of dozen. Whatever it is, it is under the designer's control.

Studying real world incidents allows us to learn about what kinds of incidents actually happen, how often different types of incidents happen, and how many rounds are typically expended resolving them. This is a different type of knowledge than what you get from FOF training, and it is valuable in its own right, IMO.