Thoughts on low capacity 9mm carry for self defense ?

ECS686 · Jan 5, 2024

Since at least one of you here has thrown that why one cop carry’s 146 rounds” BS as a blanket statement when capacity is brought up here’s the same guy!

If you want a 17 round wonder blaster out however nobody even off duty folks are responding to 911 calls, responsible to take people into custody or do anything but get the heck out of it!

Going Back: 45 to 9 to... 45?

A cop who became famous for switching to a 9mm with 145 rounds on his person after a gunfight returns to a .45.

americanhandgunner.com

Magyars · Jan 5, 2024

ECS686 said:
Since at least one of you here has thrown that why one cop carry’s 146 rounds” BS as a blanket statement when capacity is brought up here’s the same guy!

If you want a 17 round wonder blaster out however nobody even off duty folks are responding to 911 calls, responsible to take people into custody or do anything but get the heck out of it!

Going Back: 45 to 9 to... 45?

A cop who became famous for switching to a 9mm with 145 rounds on his person after a gunfight returns to a .45.

americanhandgunner.com

Interesting article. He still carries the Glock on duty tho!

cedartop · Jan 5, 2024

ECS686 said:
Since at least one of you here has thrown that why one cop carry’s 146 rounds” BS as a blanket statement when capacity is brought up here’s the same guy!

If you want a 17 round wonder blaster out however nobody even off duty folks are responding to 911 calls, responsible to take people into custody or do anything but get the heck out of it!

Going Back: 45 to 9 to... 45?

A cop who became famous for switching to a 9mm with 145 rounds on his person after a gunfight returns to a .45.

americanhandgunner.com

His case was an outlier to begin with so take it with a grain of salt, but his switch back has more to do with Illinois's onerous new capacity laws than anything else.

dieselrealtor · Jan 5, 2024

Admittedly I have not read the entire thread. After 123 replies I am sure there is not much I can add as it has likely been covered.

Just going to share 2 experiences, to clarify I am not by nature afraid of dogs.

Years ago I was with a client moving in from out of state (retired LEO) & there was an unfamiliar dog in the parking lot of my office acting aggressively toward some small kids playing nearby, I Yelled at it to try to scare it off (done this before with others). Instead of it running off it turned toward us & started acting aggressive, I was rattled & started reaching for my pocket (before I understood importance of a good holster) while my client had picked something up to use as a weapon. By this time the dog owner was getting its attention.

More recent years I was clearing snow from my sidewalks at the office (different office) & the next door neighbor was out with her dog which was unleashed. It was coming toward me growling as she was calling it back, had my hand on my pocket gun still in my pocket asking her to call the dog back. It was uncomfortably close before she gained control of the animal.

Had I had to discharge my weapon in either occurance it would have likely been at a small moving target & all I had was the capacity of an LCP. While I was rattled & not in a controlled range environment, not sure that my 6 rounds would have been sufficient.

In my line of work most of the vast majority of risk is from animals, loose dogs, raccoons etc. Very small risk of dangerous people while securing a property that has been vacant & unsecured for some time.

ECS686 · Jan 5, 2024

cedartop said:
His case was an outlier to begin with so take it with a grain of salt, but his switch back has more to do with Illinois's onerous new capacity laws than anything else.

My point was mag capacity is not a make or break factor in civilian shootings.

My buddy Darryl Bolke is talking about revolvers but the points are sort of what I mentioned and some more he gets into.

Route 45 · Jan 5, 2024

ECS686 said:
My point was mag capacity is not a make or break factor in civilian shootings.

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

Route 45 · Jan 5, 2024

ECS686 said:
Since at least one of you here has thrown that why one cop carry’s 146 rounds” BS as a blanket statement when capacity is brought up here’s the same guy!

If you want a 17 round wonder blaster out however nobody even off duty folks are responding to 911 calls, responsible to take people into custody or do anything but get the heck out of it!

Going Back: 45 to 9 to... 45?

A cop who became famous for switching to a 9mm with 145 rounds on his person after a gunfight returns to a .45.

americanhandgunner.com

From the article:

"As we’ve seen in the past with others, it was magazine restriction laws that drove Tim Gramins back to the .45. If you must have fewer cartridges, bigger bullets make sense."

Decision arrived at not by tactical considerations, not by statistics and not by common sense. Decision arrived at because of the restriction of rights on law-abiding citizens, apparently to include retired police officers in Stalinois.

ECS686 · Jan 5, 2024

Route 45 said:
From the article:

"As we’ve seen in the past with others, it was magazine restriction laws that drove Tim Gramins back to the .45. If you must have fewer cartridges, bigger bullets make sense."

Decision arrived at not by tactical considerations, not by statistics and not by common sense. Decision arrived at because of the restriction of rights on law-abiding citizens, apparently to include retired police officers in Stalinois.

Perhaps BBI can chime I. With specific recent shoots he can talk about.

That said. when articles like this while a law might be mentioned don’t get to focuses in on it. The bigger picture this isn’t about that. (And nobody is advocating banning high cap magazines) just talking about likelyhood.

When you get into the weeds if real shootings You can say that whole “tactical necessity “ in civilian shootings as well.

I can find zero cases of civilian shootings just had to have 15-30 rounds to end he hostilities. Yes you can find cases where they shot 30 rounds like the Florida guy (who is lucky he wasn’t charged)

So as I have stayed in other posts folks should probably concern themselves with some less lethal options before 17-21 round mags.

John Wick round counts just don’t pan out at Walmart in a Robbery or even at home in a home invasion

So simply put other words simply picking a handgun because it holds 17 rounds doesn’t make one prepared!

ECS686 · Jan 5, 2024

Route 45 said:
Can I borrow your crystal ball?

An earthquake and tornado could happen but how many folks get wrapped up about earthquake or tornado preparation

BehindBlueI's · Jan 5, 2024

ECS686 said:
Since at least one of you here has thrown that why one cop carry’s 146 rounds” BS as a blanket statement when capacity is brought up here’s the same guy!

If you want a 17 round wonder blaster out however nobody even off duty folks are responding to 911 calls, responsible to take people into custody or do anything but get the heck out of it!

Going Back: 45 to 9 to... 45?

A cop who became famous for switching to a 9mm with 145 rounds on his person after a gunfight returns to a .45.

americanhandgunner.com

IMO, many people have drawn the wrong conclusion from this obvious outlier. What solved the problem was the shooter *slowed down and made good hits*. Not the caliber, not the bullets, not capacity other than he didn't start thinking about the need to switch targeting areas and focus on making those hits until he knew he was about out of it. Let's say he had the same mindset change after three shots to the bad guy's torso didn't take him out of the fight. How many shots fired now? So is the best lesson I need to carry 50 more rounds so I can have 50 more opportunities and hope I don't catch a round that disables me in the meantime?

We're also back to the differences between a dedicated attacker vs a random crime for economic gain, etc, which I covered earlier in the thread.

BehindBlueI's · Jan 5, 2024

dieselrealtor said:
Had I had to discharge my weapon in either occurance it would have likely been at a small moving target & all I had was the capacity of an LCP. While I was rattled & not in a controlled range environment, not sure that my 6 rounds would have been sufficient.

Is the issue capacity or how difficult it is to shoot an LCP to a level you find acceptable in the scenarios you find most likely?

Allow me to posit a hypothetical unbound by the laws of physics and any realistic considerations beyond your ability to kill an aggressive dog

Say you had to shoot. Would you rather have an off the shelf LCP with a 30 round magazine or a custom bull's eye gun fitted to your hand with a 5 round magazine?

That is an exaggeration of the decision I made with the LCR vs G43 etc. The LCR is lower capacity but I simply shoot it better on any measurable metric that doesn't include a reload. I'm not concerned with reload speed. Perhaps of some interest, the LCR is what I used when attacked by a pitbull while jogging (I've told the story before, I was stupid enough to run with 2 ear buds in at the time and wasn't aware of it's presence until just before it jumped on me from behind and latched on to my arm. I physically fought it for a bit, it let go and circled me for awhile, lesser attempts to dissuade it failed, and I finally shot it. 1 shot, chest hit, ended the aggression.

cedartop · Jan 5, 2024

ECS686 said:
My point was mag capacity is not a make or break factor in civilian shootings.

My buddy Darryl Bolke is talking about revolvers but the points are sort of what I mentioned and some more he gets into.

I like and respect Darryl a lot. His writing is great and I love his Secrets of Highly Successful Gunfighters presentation. However, what works for him doesn't necessarily work for me. That interview highlights two great examples. Pocket carry and revolvers. I could go into all of the reason for both of these but it can also be as simple as I am not just preparing for the 3X3X3. In my role for example as a church security person if something should happen do I really want to just be carrying a get them off me gun when I may have to make a tight shot? No. Do I want to be prepared for events that have to be more offensive in nature? Yes.

People have to scrutinize what it is they are preparing for and then carry and train accordingly. If what you are carrying for is different than what I am, that's fine, rock on. Just don't put your limitations on me because, "that stuff is not that common". If that was the standard, why bother carrying.

(You in general, not you specifically)

Route 45 · Jan 5, 2024

ECS686 said:
An earthquake and tornado could happen but how many folks get wrapped up about earthquake or tornado preparation

Maybe you can point me in the direction of a handheld device to thwart an earthquake or tornado. Already have a weather app on my cell phone.

Route 45 · Jan 5, 2024

ECS686 said:
Perhaps BBI can chime I. With specific recent shoots he can talk about.

That said. when articles like this while a law might be mentioned don’t get to focuses in on it. The bigger picture this isn’t about that. (And nobody is advocating banning high cap magazines) just talking about likelyhood.

When you get into the weeds if real shootings You can say that whole “tactical necessity “ in civilian shootings as well.

I can find zero cases of civilian shootings just had to have 15-30 rounds to end he hostilities. Yes you can find cases where they shot 30 rounds like the Florida guy (who is lucky he wasn’t charged)

So as I have stayed in other posts folks should probably concern themselves with some less lethal options before 17-21 round mags.

John Wick round counts just don’t pan out at Walmart in a Robbery or even at home in a home invasion

So simply put other words simply picking a handgun because it holds 17 rounds doesn’t make one prepared!

I care a hell of a lot less about what has happened than what may happen. There is no defensive situation that I can imagine where less capacity is to my detriment. If it fits in the same space, is easier to deploy effectively and is reliable and accurate, I can't imagine any reason to go with a 5 or 6 popper. You worry about what you expect to happen, based on statistics. I worry about what I don't expect to happen. Good luck.

BehindBlueI's · Jan 5, 2024

Well, we're where these threads always end up at. You'se gonna die because X rounds isn't enough but X+Y is enough. You're going to be kilt in the streetz because you believe X is different than my X based on (insert nebulous reasoning here). Real world experience and data is meaningless because I can imagine a threat that requires X+Y (but not X+Y+1) to solve.

I don't think anybody is arguing less capacity is good just for the sake of less capacity. If all else is equal, carry more ammo. It's just that all else is never equal, so you choose the metrics that matter most to you and go with it.

The OP said he doesn't wear a seat belt. I'm guessing the level of risk from 5 vs 8 vs 21 rounds of ammunition in a rural environment with no credible direct threat is significantly less than driving around the same area sans seat belt. Nobody harps on him for that. Capacity becomes an emotional issue for some reason, the area where 'what if' gets played so much more than considerations that much more often impact good vs bad outcomes. Everybody draws the line somewhere, and not just on guns. Who buys cars strictly on crash test results? How much research and agonizing is done over the best fire extinguisher and smoke detector system for your house?

I guarantee nobody here is routinely wearing concealable body armor, a tourniquet, routinely training weapon retention skills, etc. It's too burdensome. Hell, most of us probably aren't getting the routine medical screening we should be. What's the difference if we're all worried about what we don't expect, reasonably risk doesn't enter the equation, etc? Nothing. Because nobody is actually preparing for all possible risks.

cedartop · Jan 5, 2024

BehindBlueI's said:
Well, we're where these threads always end up at. You'se gonna die because X rounds isn't enough but X+Y is enough. You're going to be kilt in the streetz because you believe X is different than my X based on (insert nebulous reasoning here). Real world experience and data is meaningless because I can imagine a threat that requires X+Y (but not X+Y+1) to solve.

I don't think anybody is arguing less capacity is good just for the sake of less capacity. If all else is equal, carry more ammo. It's just that all else is never equal, so you choose the metrics that matter most to you and go with it.

The OP said he doesn't wear a seat belt. I'm guessing the level of risk from 5 vs 8 vs 21 rounds of ammunition in a rural environment with no credible direct threat is significantly less than driving around the same area sans seat belt. Nobody harps on him for that. Capacity becomes an emotional issue for some reason, the area where 'what if' gets played so much more than considerations that much more often impact good vs bad outcomes. Everybody draws the line somewhere, and not just on guns. Who buys cars strictly on crash test results? How much research and agonizing is done over the best fire extinguisher and smoke detector system for your house?

I guarantee nobody here is routinely wearing concealable body armor, a tourniquet, routinely training weapon retention skills, etc. It's too burdensome. Hell, most of us probably aren't getting the routine medical screening we should be. What's the difference if we're all worried about what we don't expect, reasonably risk doesn't enter the equation, etc? Nothing. Because nobody is actually preparing for all possible risks.

GunsCarsPlanes · Jan 23, 2024

BehindBlueI's said:
Well, we're where these threads always end up at.

It's keeping up with the jonses. Even in 2024 a wheel gun is going to have n+1 capacity for almost any situation you'd ever come across.

You could have 3 guns w/2,000 rounds and find a situation where you look like an idiot because if you only had 2,005 rounds.

Trapper Jim · Jan 23, 2024

Single or Double Digit and all the discussion on this makes me wonder what the magical number is for optimum
civil use. Did one loose the fight because he needed the seventh round? Or was it the 13th or the 21st?

Or was it not the number of rounds fault at all. Could be something else like poor marksmanship, lack of common sense or staying out of the gunfight in the first place, lack of training, or no practice of shooting with your eyeballs as big as ballons or poop in your pants?

I think all this keyboard energy would be better served if one would step out from behind the double clicker mouse and get to the range and test hisself almost every day. Join an outdoor club no matter how far you think it is to drive. Learn to handload ammunition. Get Professional training. Test not only your skill set but your equipment as well. Rinse and repeat every day that you can, especially if you carry a gun.

In one way, I am happy to have most ranges to myself however I still encourage membership. In a perfect shooters world, there would be less golf courses and more ranges. There would be more awareness with each other as sportsmen, competitors, and strength in numbers.

See some of you on the range

Trapper

armalitesheepdog · Jan 23, 2024

While standing in a very long line waiting for my lunch and pondering the replys here (and one from the OP) Where you live and what you do has alot to do with your decisions. If the most dangerous part of your day is having coffee with farmers you can probably carry that 5 shot snubby with confidence. If the total murders in your county equal 1 every 5 years then forget about it. Carry a pointy stick if you want. Sometimes we can overthink and get bogged down in the what ifs. Im totally not trying to be snarky but outside of LEOs most of us if ever confronted with a threat 10 6 or even 5 rounds will probably handle the situation. But.....if 17+1 gives you the warm and fuzzys then carry that.
But with out skill training and practice it may still not work out for you.

Mij · Jan 23, 2024

So after a couple weeks of soaking this thread resurfaced. For those interested, I put the j frame back on about a week ago.

My findings have been surprising. With the recent extreme cold I’ve only been out to the range 3 times. I’ve found the 38 harder to draw from the Kore belt due to the holster movement upwards and the Galco holster tension from the extreme molding to the model of firearm. I fired 200 rounds in total in three sessions. The other side of the coin, I shot 8 fifty round boxes of 9 mm range ammo before it got cold. The compact 9 draws a lot smoother from the Bianci with no movement. I wasn’t on the timer but it appeared to me I was training myself away from my old muscle memory of the j frame. My groups were still an inch larger with the 9 mm than the 38 but speed was getting faster. I attribute that to target acquisition and a better grip position on the draw. All of this was from 7 yard line.

So to sum up. I’m still undecided. I’ll carry the 38 for now, I’ll probably go back to the compact 9 permanently in the spring when more traveling around is required. Thanks to everyone for the input.

Thoughts on low capacity 9mm carry for self defense ?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

Master

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Master

Master

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Master

Master

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Plinker

Master

Master

Permaplinker (thanks to Expat)

Log in

Site Supporter

Forum statistics