17+1 with my FNS9. 12+1 with FNS9C. 13+1 with VP40. They only thing we have that has an MA legal size standard mag is my wife's Walther CCP.
I carry a spare mag depending on where I am going.
I carry a spare mag depending on where I am going.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
I have been leaning this way as well.The reason I ask is because I've recently transitioned to carrying a 5 round revolver with one speed strip as my EDC.
I agree with carrying what gives you piece of mind; that's the most realistic answer. The numbers state you having to draw is fire more than 2 is infinitesimally small.
But everyone has heard that one story where the attacker was either jacked up on meth or was just one of those people who just downright refused to go down without eating the whole mag. If it only takes a spare mag or speedloader in your pocket to cover all the possible scenarios from bad to worse, why not?
Man, I was ridiculed in another thread for carrying a mere 10+1 9mm pistol at times. Now 5 rounds is okay?
I am so confused.
If this is the case, it's hard to argue that we need 15 or 17 round magazines for self defense.
Let's face it: If you aren't carrying a Glock 19 with at least 3 square-notch, drop-free, full-capacity mags, you ain't nuthin' on NES.That's cause if you were a real operator, you'd be CCing an AR with 6 spare 30's, lol!
A spare mag is great insurance against some type of stoppage. I have seen mags fall out, base plates pop off, followers get stuck, etc.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=149_1433115107 10 rounds would've been sufficient, right? And if you run out, well, that's just bad luck isn't it?
The only one intellectually dishonest is you, since you're utterly failing to understand that when fighting against multiple assailants, the more rounds you have, the better. This also applies to the LA riots, where businesses were broken into by multiple rioters at a time (armed and gang-related or not). See the similarities yet or do I need to start from scratch with you?Don't be an idiot. 15 rounds probably wouldn't have been enough there either.
The Koreans in the LA riots weren't targeted explicitly by a gang that was all armed, so this is a terrible comparison. Trying to compare them is intellectually dishonest.
I've been researching this topic but can't find much in the way of any credible sources of a self-defense shooting that was botched in favor of the assailant because the victim ran out of ammunition. I've read some of Ayoob's work and he details several high profile cases of this happening to LEOs, sparking the transition for most PDs to go from revolvers to semi-autos. The only private citizen case that I can find is that of Lance Thomas, the LA watch store owner who was robbed by multiple armed assailants but survived because he kept three revolvers under the counter and therefore had enough ammo on tap to successfully repel the attack.
The reason I ask is because I've recently transitioned to carrying a 5 round revolver with one speed strip as my EDC. I'm plenty accurate with it, it carries light and conceals well, points and feels great in hand. But there's always the lingering thought in the back of mind that 5 rounds with an extra 5 might not be enough, and makes me want to go back to my Glock 19 plus spare mag. That said, I figure that the most common deadly force encounter I would most likely have outside the home would be some sort of attempted mugging or gas station robbery with one or two assailants, where my goal would be to look for an exit and get out, with engagement as an absolute last resort. Same thing if it was an active shooter situation. In my home though, my primary concern would be a home invasion with multiple assailants, and no practical or safe way out of the house. My home defense firearms in that case are the revolver in addition to semi-autos with extra mags on hand.
NES braintrust, what are your thoughts and opinions on this?
Let's face it: If you aren't carrying a Glock 19 with at least 3 square-notch, drop-free, full-capacity mags, you ain't nuthin' on NES.
Glock 19 + a spare mag (both pre-bans in my state) = 31 rounds of 9mm goodness
It's hard to argue the case for revolvers. They're novelty items for range use IMO....
If you go by the law of averages, the average person will never be in a position to need a gun, so why carry one? Nor will the average person have need for a frontal airbag. So why are they mandated?
We don't prepare for the statistical average, or at least I don't.
I plan for the most-plausible worst-case scenario for the situation at hand.
Then you have the case of the woman holed up in her attic with her infant son. She pumped 5 shots from her .38 (emptying it)into the home invader that was clearly looking for blood, and that dude was able to walk back to his car. Had there been a another assailant or had she missed a shot, she and her infant son would have likely been murdered.
I know that you are playing devil's advocate here, but people miss shots especially under extreme duress. Look at NYPD throwing 84 shots at some dude and striking him once? Hit a few bystanders in the process but missed their target 83 friggin times!
And if this were true (that standard capacity mags are not needed), why do LEOs need them when they have an entire Police Department to back them up? The average citizen doesn't have that sort of help.
^ I guess I'm borderin' on sumpthin' then. 1 in it, 2 next to it.
It isn't hard to argue the case for revolvers. They're great for backup, or for deep concealment. I have 38SPL for both. Summer carry gets harder,
I get looks if my shirt is untucked at work.
nvestigators said Slater then chased the family into a crawl space near the attic - and when he opened a door, the mother opened fire striking him five times.Police said Slater stumbled out of the house, got into a car and crashed into a tree line in an apparent get-away attempt.
The only one intellectually dishonest is you, since you're utterly failing to understand that when fighting against multiple assailants, the more rounds you have, the better. This also applies to the LA riots, where businesses were broken into by multiple rioters at a time (armed and gang-related or not). See the similarities yet or do I need to start from scratch with you?
You don't carry an M4 and three 30 round magazines with you all the time, do you? Why not? The answer is because you believe that a 15 round magazine and a spare is plenty
I do.
Whether multiple assailant defense situations are common or not is irrelevant to the argument over magazine capacity. The fact is, situations where 15+ rounds are needed DO occur. If there is any opportunity to adequately defend yourself, as inconvenient as it may be, why would you deny one the option to do so? I hope excluding statistical outliers isn't your metric for making policy.But the LA riots and a gang invasion are very much not the way the overwhelming majority of us live. Those are statistical outliers that aren't representative of the whole.
You don't carry an M4 and three 30 round magazines with you all the time, do you? Why not? The answer is because you believe that a 15 round magazine and a spare is plenty.
The problem is that if "worst possible case" is your metric for making policy or decisions, (which it shouldn't be) than people who are pathologically scared of guns will point to the Pulse nightclub or Sandy Hook or Kent State or San Bernadino or that lunatic who shot up the birthday pool party yesterday and argue that no civilians should have any guns at all. (while ignoring the fact that violent crime and murder has been dropping steadily while gun ownership is at an all time high)
It's intellectually dishonest to use one set of criteria for the data that suits you, and another set for the data that doesn't.
If you're going to use "worst case scenario" for "why we should have guns", you have to be prepared that the other side will *also* use "worst case scenario" as to why we shouldn't.
It's hard to argue the case for revolvers. They're novelty items for range use IMO....
It's less of a pain if you file off the front sight.Carrying a gun is a pain in the ass. For some people carrying a small revolver is less of a pain in the ass.
-Mike
Honestly why does everything have to be so absolute? I vary my carry based on the probability of need and the type of threat im likely to encounter. I carry a glock 42 sometimes when i go for trail runs with my dog or mow my lawn, i feel like a homo, but its enough for whatever im likely to encounter around my house. When i go out in public i day to day stuff, grocery store etc, i upgrade to a G19 with a spare, any time im traveling on the highway or further away from home i usually put a rifle in my truck on top of my edc g19.
I guess what im saying is that its cool to game your probability of need and base your carry options off that. But i absolutely think you're kidding yourself if you think a j-frame shoved in your pocket is good enough for anything more serious than random street crime stuff. I dont carry for that, im not gonna shoot some kid trying to steal my wallet, im much more oriented towards mass shooter stuff or terrorist attacks that i could find myself in the middle of. I guess it depends on your outlook.