"Capacity isn't important" [Archive] - Page 2 - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : "Capacity isn't important"


Pages : 1 [2]

Kegs
06-13-2011, 18:41
Not sure fighting 15 people with a handgun is feasible.

With a 10mm, I will only need 8 rounds, and the last one will probably be lodged in a tree somewhere.

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 18:44
Recognizing the value in the potential to engage a greater number of targets before a reload doesn't require deep analysis, or recourse to mountains of data.
Don't think anyone has said anything about deep analysis or mountains of data. What has been mentioned was personal preference driving high capacity selection as opposed to objective analysis.
It's not personal, for me, at all, and I never stated that looking at compiled data was bad. In fact, I stated earlier that referring to compiled data was great, if it led one to what might ultimately prove to be the right choice.
Actually, you did say it was bad:
Some of us think that referring to compiled data to rationalize carrying less gun is a bad idea.
It seems you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Using data is bad if it causes one to do something you disagree with, but it is good if it leads them to doing something you do agree with.
As long as you can pull off carrying it, why not carry a little more gun than the minimum the statistics suggest?
Can you show us where anyone here has suggested one should not do that? Of course, that also implies looking at the data and analyzing it to know what the statistics suggest!:supergrin:

Daryl in Az
06-13-2011, 18:51
The two are not mutually exclusive. We all decide on what to carry and how much of it, some suggest that decision should be based on a realistic understanding rather than make-believe. But one still chooses what they want to carry either way.

Well, yeah.

But the title of this thread indicated that "capacity doesn't matter". In some cases, it MIGHT matter. Or, ir might not. It depends on some unknown variables.

I seldom carry a spare mag for my G23, although I'll often stick a speed loader in for my J-frame revolver. When I go out into the desert here along the Mexico border, I usually carry a spare mag for the '23. Seems like a good idea when I might be 50 miles from help, and those 50 miles resemble cow trails more than roads.

When someone says "Capacity doesn't matter", they can only say that in consideration of their own experiences, and few if any have experienced all there is to experience.

Sure, they can twist statistics and other's experiences to back up their statement, but their statistics won't make any difference to a person in a bad situation who runs out of ammo.

So does capacity matter? Yes? No? My answer is "sometimes", which may equate to "yes" to many people. After all, none of us knows what we'll face on any given day; we can only try to make a semi-educated guess.

And if I'm in doubt, I'll carry extra ammo.

Daryl

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 18:53
I would have to say 15 rounds with no reload required is "better" than 15 rounds that requires a reload. Kiss
No disagreement on my part, but that does seem to conflict with all those folks (not you) that argue you should always carry a spare magazine not for the ammo issue but for the malfunction issue.:wavey:
I will say a reasonable amount of rounds is better than an unreasonable amount.
There is the crux of the issue. What is reasonable, what is unreasonable, and how does one come to that determination.

Seraph
06-13-2011, 19:00
Actually, you did say it was bad:
Some of us think that referring to compiled data to rationalize carrying less gun is a bad idea.

No, I didn't say it was bad. I said some of us (and I meant to include myself) think it's a bad idea to use it as a rationale for carrying a smaller capacity sidearm. That's different from saying it's bad.

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 19:01
Well, yeah.

But the title of this thread indicated that "capacity doesn't matter". In some cases, it MIGHT matter. Or, ir might not. It depends on some unknown variables.
No, it indicated that "capacity isn't important." Very different. Lots of things MIGHT matter, but we would not consider them as being important. It MIGHT matter to wear a pink shirt. But I doubt anyone would argue the importance of shirt color under most conditions.
Sure, they can twist statistics and other's experiences to back up their statement, but their statistics won't make any difference to a person in a bad situation who runs out of ammo.
People keep trying to confuse things. Capacity is not ammo. Running out of ammo is an ammo issue, not a capacity issue. I can carry lots of ammo for a gun that has low capacity.

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 19:05
No, I didn't say it was bad. I said some of us (and I meant to include myself) think it's a bad idea to use it as a rationale for carrying a smaller capacity sidearm. That's different from saying it's bad.
Sorry, that is not what you said. That might be what you meant, and I'll accept that as a clarification.

Warp
06-13-2011, 19:44
A little late here, but I couldn't agree more. After lurking around gun forums for a while and seeing people saying their EDC consists of a primary, 3 spare mags, BUG + 2 spare mags/speed loaders, 2 knives, retractable baton, etc. you gotta wonder if it's a realistic precaution or just fantasy. I can picture these guys in their living rooms ducking and diving behind furniture as they play out hollywood gunfight scenarios in their heads. :supergrin:

If that is what you see people claiming as EDC you must have found some gun forums I am not aware of.

Seraph
06-13-2011, 20:09
Sorry, that is not what you said. That might be what you meant, and I'll accept that as a clarification.

It is almost exactly what I said:

Some of us think that referring to compiled data to rationalize carrying less gun is a bad idea.

talon
06-13-2011, 20:29
Thanks your right. Personally if I was going to worry about having a malfunction that required a mag strip I would just carry a spare gun instead of a spare mag.

No disagreement on my part, but that does seem to conflict with all those folks (not you) that argue you should always carry a spare magazine not for the ammo issue but for the malfunction issue.:wavey:

There is the crux of the issue. What is reasonable, what is unreasonable, and how does one come to that determination.

Deaf Smith
06-13-2011, 21:26
Ugh.

I like Tom, but the garbage statistics he threw up there are part of the problem here.

To qoute:

"Rangemaster Student Involved Shootings
56 incidents to date. Of these, 10 were selected for a presentation at the 2010 Tactical Conference.
Of those ten representative shootings:
5 of 10 involved an armed robbery by one or two suspects;
3 occurred on mall parking lots, only one occurred in home;
In all but one, the range was inside the length of a large car/SUV;
4 out of 10 incidents involved 2 or more suspects;
Average number of shots fired 3.8 (low-1, high-11)."

Why did he pick those 10, why not the other 46? Cherry picking incidents, then presenting statistical summaries is kinda what got marshall and sanow in trouble. Bad juju.

He picked the 10 because those were the ones he had that had detailed debriefings on degoodman. He told that to us in class (he also had them on powerpoint presentation.)

Some of the students did not speak much about their encounter (maybe by lawyer's request or they just didn't want to talk about it.) The ten were very detailed and VERY interesting.

Deaf

ArtCrafter
06-14-2011, 03:48
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17492175&postcount=98

HTH :wavey:

SDGlock23
06-14-2011, 07:41
I'm not saying capacity isn't important, but whatever I'm carrying whether it be a high cap Glock or a single stack 1911, I'm gonna have a number of spare magazines on me...especially if I'm going to be in a "bad area". But, if I can escape first I will, even if I have to run a few of them over in the process.

dugo
06-14-2011, 09:35
Who would argue with that? But this thread, judging from the title, isn't about how much training someone has. It's about the "risk and cost/benefit" of carrying "extra" ammo.

Right. Maybe I missed the point. Let's see ... cost/risk versus benefit? Well, this is an illustration of the nebulous and uncertain character of this analysis.

Leave operator skill and carry-ability out, and the next significant issue would be advantages and disadvantages of particular hardware in particular circumstances. Leave all that out, and maybe we can squeeze out some meaningful differences. Still, there's probably not enough difference between the three to make any real difference, and we may have sterilized the analysis beyond usefullness.

Sure, if you narrow your scope enough, you get some clear issues. Compare a 5-round snubby to a full cap G17 with a spare mag or two, and you get enough contrast to have real meaning.

But, if you then add all the external and personal factors back in to the mix, even that obvious difference in capacity probably doesn't have as much real-world significance overall as it looks like on the surface. Sure, there's some, but under most circumstances it's not as important as it seems like it should be. That significance shrinks more when you start changing details, like adding a speed loader, weighing ammunition options, or noting the potential difficulty of carrying the G17 rig everywhere. Barring a special environment, that significance may continue to shrink when you look at the odds via well-objectified (is that a real term?) statistics.

(Ok, I still don't like to think of stats as more than a good indication of the trends, but a good *objective* look at them should still be the best measure of the odds.)

dugo
06-14-2011, 10:14
No, I didn't say it was bad. I said some of us (and I meant to include myself) think it's a bad idea to use it as a rationale for carrying a smaller capacity sidearm. That's different from saying it's bad.

So, ideally you would not decide what to carry, and then go find a collection of facts designed to justify your decision. That process would be a bad idea. (I think that happens a lot.)

You would ideally go find facts first, then determine what the facts were telling you, then make a decision objectively based on that education. (And ideally, just to stay current, once in a while you would check any new findings to see if your decision needed to be updated.)

If the facts were legitimately telling you that considering all circumstances it was reasonable to carry a smaller capacity sidearm, then that would not be a bad idea. It would be a reasonable idea. (And vice versa, of course, regarding a higher cap gun.)

Is that it?

David Armstrong
06-14-2011, 11:08
It is almost exactly what I said:

Right, it is almost exactly what you said. Exactly what you said was as I posted. Again, if you meant something different than what you posted and needed to clarify, no big deal, most of us have done something along those lines at one time or another.

David Armstrong
06-14-2011, 11:10
Thanks your right. Personally if I was going to worry about having a malfunction that required a mag strip I would just carry a spare gun instead of a spare mag.
We think alike. I've often argued that a spare gun made a lot more sense than a spare mag if the concern was how to address malfunctions.

David Armstrong
06-14-2011, 11:18
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17492175&postcount=98

HTH :wavey:
Ed also does a really good seminar on using the snub gun that I can recommend to folks.

RussP
06-14-2011, 11:42
This is going in circles.