Expert advice on selecting a handgun

[Pa. Patriot]

This article reinforces my arguement that capacity is a necessity.
People who carry revolvers or 6 or 7 round 1911's in 45 cry about how if they need more than what theyre carrying they are dead anyway. I think thats a cop-out and it's a weak arguement for defending thier favorite gun. I just don't see how anyone, the year being 2009, would pass up on a proven high capacity handgun such as the Glock or XD series. I mean most Glocks and XD's hold double the capacity of a standard 1911 in .45.

The article also states how so many people in the USA seem to think 1 or 2 shots is all you need, when in reality it is not. Why, well like he said, the lone criminal is an urban myth. If I ever have to use my gun to defend myself it will just as likely be against multiple attackers as it is against a single attacker. So many people here on the forums and folks I've talked with at the range scoff at the idea of ever having to fight off more than 1 attacker, and even using more than 2 or 3 rounds. They throw the notion to the wind, they think it's not possible and its just something seen on TV.

I know I'm just ranting and you've heard this all before. I also recognize that at the end of the day it's really about what you like, its your freedom to do so. The second amendment doesn't come with a guideline that says, "Choose the weapon that will be the most advantageous and reliable, such as modern age platforms".

Capacity increases survivability.

You said:
" I just don't see how anyone, the year being 2009, would pass up on a proven high capacity handgun such as the Glock or XD series. "

I'm sorry, and this is not meant as an insult, just a comparative tid-bit to put the next comment in perspective. Maybe it's because you are only 23 years old and have not yet learned the other elements of survival... I've been training for about as many years as you have been alive, and I will say without hesitation that your placing too much weight on ONE single element of a complex and endless set of variables, fixed elements and set of skills.

Capacity is only ONE element of survival, not relevant to every encounter.

I think it's very naive to think that capacity is the key to your survival.

[jcabin]

Capacity is only ONE element of survival, not relevant to every encounter.

I think it's very naive to think that capacity is the key to your survival.

I think people who limit themselves to 5 to 7 rounds are handicapping themselves. Theres many situations where you won't need more than that. If ever you needed more why be limited? Atleast in my experience people don't generally attack me by themselves, nor do I think a lone criminal would select me to be his target. For me having the capacity to react and stop the threat of more than 1 attacker is a necessity.

[Carnes]

It's possible, but not probable...at least not to the extent that your argument for higher capacity would necessitate.

In my experience, a confrontation with an unarmed adversary is usually going to be some type of theft (snatch and grab stuff) and this has probably an equal chance to be conducted by a lone attacker as it is a group.

I know that the gist of his post was more along the line that multiple attackers would be more likely, but to be fair, you both said the same thing.

If I ever have to use my gun to defend myself it will just as likely be against multiple attackers as it is against a single attacker.

At 3 against 1, having 18 rounds will not save you if, on the off chance, the thugs do stand and fight. There are maybe a couple of handfuls worth of people in the world that can win that scenario reliably. That's more of a math problem than anything, and the answer, barring an act of god or a freak mishap, is pretty much absolute.

If you're biggest or most influential concern is multiple attackers, the answer is not capacity, the answer is more bodies with guns on your side. You can only shoot one at a time, and all three can shoot you at once. That puts you so far behind the curve that there is simply no way to make that up with capacity. Even if we add the idea of cover to the equation, if you can't find cover in the time it takes to fire 7 or 8 rounds while moving, I don't think the other 10 or 11 shots is going to get you much further without an unbelievable amount of luck on your side.

I agree that having a high cap firearm will not, by itself, save you while acting alone against multiple attackers. However, I would add that good training and discipline will go a long way toward putting the odds in your favor. I don't think you need to be one of the top rated handful of shooters in order to win against multiple attackers that have little or no training. If you put three Lycanthropes (Super Mod, Type 1 ea.) against one Lycanthrope, the math works out easily in favor of the group with higher numbers. But if you put one Lycanthrope, against 3-5 people who are significantly less skilled, I would bet my $$$ on the Lycanator.

Also, although military operations are vastly different from a street encounter, I think some meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the idea that 160 US soldiers in Mogadishu reportedly caused as many as 5000 casualties in one battle. A little training and having equipment that gives you an advantage can go a long way.

[NineseveN]

I agree that having a high cap firearm will not, by itself, save you while acting alone against multiple attackers. However, I would add that good training and discipline will go a long way toward putting the odds in your favor. I don't think you need to be one of the top rated handful of shooters in order to win against multiple attackers that have little or no training. If you put three Lycanthropes (Super Mod, Type 1 ea.) against one Lycanthrope, the math works out easily in favor of the group with higher numbers. But if you put one Lycanthrope, against 3-5 people who are significantly less skilled, I would bet my $$$ on the Lycanator.

I wouldn't, and I kinda doubt he would either. First, let's keep in mind that we're not talking about points and scoring systems here. Your targtes shoot back, and not getting hit is probably more important than scoring hits quickly. I personally find little to no victory in shooting 3 of them as fast as one of them hits me, if I die or become disabled, I find no personal joy in gaining the honors for accomplishing that. As civilians, we don't run around with our guns at low ready like a soldier in a combat zone might. Most of us are not likely to be the aggressor in so far as we draw before our adversary does (of course, not to discount the scenario where we draw on the threat as presented before a weapon is visible). If one or more armed attackers have decided to pursue you as a target and they start their draw stroke before you do (or worse yet, actually compete their draws before you start yours), you're not going to beat all three to the punch unless they're handicapped in some way. Yes, you can greatly increase your odds of not getting shot by being able to "explode off the X and put rounds on target" as Gabe would put it, but that's the kind of odds you only play when you have to, and in retrospect realize how incredibly lucky you were to have survived them.

If we get a couple of other people to do some force on force, we can wargame that out a bit if you like, we'll take the quickest shooter and stand him off with 2-3 others of lesser skill and see where that ends up. And more to the point, most of us are not Lycanthrope. I know he's not Rob Leatham or Brian Enos (which is another level altogether), but his being a master class shooter puts him on top of the far and wide majority of those of us not only on this forum, but of those that carry guns at all. We have a few master class shooters here (some without the title as they don't actually compete, but they train and can run and gun just as good as the "masters" can), so as not to make him out to be a rockstar or something (or put pressure on him or his reputation), I'll say that this goes for any action/combat-type shooter who reaches the level of Master or above. That's a small minority in the shooting community, which is why they call them "Masters" and "Grand Masters" (or whatever the equivalent is in the non-competition or military/LEO communities). If they were only in the top 50th or 60th percentile, they'd just call them "competent" or a little above average.

Also, although military operations are vastly different from a street encounter, I think some meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the idea that 160 US soldiers in Mogadishu reportedly caused as many as 5000 casualties in one battle. A little training and having equipment that gives you an advantage can go a long way.

Well, you nailed it with the part about being vastly different. We're talking about an isolated point of reference in one scenario, a single civilian against multiple attackers. We, as civilians don't walk around in body armor with rifles at low ready and a squad of trained individuals, each with their own set of eyes and ears and the same superior equipment (including extremely superior communications gear). 160 US soldiers can take out 5000 adversaries, sure, I buy that, but that doesn't mean that 1 single US soldier can take out 31 attackers in a single dynamic engagement just becasue it boils down to the same ratio. Team tactics and intel change the rules, but you need a team in order to accomplish that kind of modification to the odds. 2 master class shooters who've trained together versus 6 thugs is a different story than 1 master class shooter and 3 thugs...and I think most of those guys would admit to that.

[Carnes]

I wouldn't, and I kinda doubt he would either. First, let's keep in mind that we're not talking about points and scoring systems here. Your targtes shoot back, and not getting hit is probably more important than scoring hits quickly. I personally find little to no victory in shooting 3 of them as fast as one of them hits me, if I die or become disabled, I find no personal joy in gaining the honors for accomplishing that. As civilians, we don't run around with our guns at low ready like a soldier in a combat zone might. Most of us are not likely to be the aggressor in so far as we draw before our adversary does (of course, not to discount the scenario where we draw on the threat as presented before a weapon is visible). If one or more armed attackers have decided to pursue you as a target and they start their draw stroke before you do (or worse yet, actually compete their draws before you start yours), you're not going to beat all three to the punch unless they're handicapped in some way. Yes, you can greatly increase your odds of not getting shot by being able to "explode off the X and put rounds on target" as Gabe would put it, but that's the kind of odds you only play when you have to, and in retrospect realize how incredibly lucky you were to have survived them.

Well, it would be a gamble. I am by no means trying to say that a Master Class sport shooter, or a well trained combat/tactical shooter is going to be successful every time in any situation, let alone a situation where the defender is outnumbered. However, I would still put my $$$ on a well trained shooter against multiple random street thugs. The reason for that is that there are many variables that are going to affect the 3>1 dynamic.

a. high quality weapon and capacity
b. discipline of the shooter/ability to cope with stress
c. ability to consistently get rounds on target
d. knowledge of movement techniques and ability to effectively use cover
e. high situational awareness
f. familiarity with weapon/ability to efficiently correct malfunctions
g. other variables I am not thinking of at the moment

There is no way to predict which of the variables an assailant is going to posses, but a well trained shooter works toward having all the variables, so 3>1 changes to:

1a+1b+1e < 1abcdefg

But like I said, it is a gamble, because you could realistically end up with:

1abc+1def+1g > 1abcdefg

Naturally, some of the variables are going to be weighted more heavily than others. If there are three BGs and at least one of them is really good at getting rounds on target, the individual defenders survivability drops dramatically, and I think that is your main point.

I just don't feel so confident that the average thug is going to be as effective at putting rounds on target as a well trained/experienced shooter which by itself is going to do a lot to even the odds.

However, the best odds are always going to be:

0 < 1abcdefg

A person's survivability increases dramatically if they can avoid getting into any shoot-out in the first place.

If we get a couple of other people to do some force on force, we can wargame that out a bit if you like, we'll take the quickest shooter and stand him off with 2-3 others of lesser skill and see where that ends up.

I think this would be a very interesting experiment. I'm game.

Well, you nailed it with the part about being vastly different. We're talking about an isolated point of reference in one scenario, a single civilian against multiple attackers. We, as civilians don't walk around in body armor with rifles at low ready and a squad of trained individuals, each with their own set of eyes and ears and the same superior equipment (including extremely superior communications gear). 160 US soldiers can take out 5000 adversaries, sure, I buy that, but that doesn't mean that 1 single US soldier can take out 31 attackers in a single dynamic engagement just becasue it boils down to the same ratio. Team tactics and intel change the rules, but you need a team in order to accomplish that kind of modification to the odds. 2 master class shooters who've trained together versus 6 thugs is a different story than 1 master class shooter and 3 thugs...and I think most of those guys would admit to that.

I agree also. This plays into the variables I mentioned above. Having additional team members changes things by orders of magnitude. If the thugs train and can effectively work together as a team, the individual defender is up shit creek. My argument is that the higher probability lies in that the thugs will be struggling to get rounds on target, let alone know how to operate as a singular force.

Now I may be underestimating my enemy, but if I am stuck in a situation where it is three of them vs me, I am not going to just say, "well, I am outnumbered, I guess I'll beg for mercy or die." No, I am going to fight, and until that time comes, I am going to strive to posses all the variables above so that I can dramatically increase my chances of surviving such an encounter.

[Pa. Patriot]

I think people who limit themselves to 5 to 7 rounds are handicapping themselves. Theres many situations where you won't need more than that. If ever you needed more why be limited? Atleast in my experience people don't generally attack me by themselves, nor do I think a lone criminal would select me to be his target. For me having the capacity to react and stop the threat of more than 1 attacker is a necessity.

The answer is simple. Because there are other factors in determining/picking a SD handgun other than capacity.

[gnbrotz]

Without proper physical and mental training, round count is irrelevant.

[jcabin]

Without proper physical and mental training, round count is irrelevant.

Too bad you need to travel half way up or down the eastern sea board to get to a place that offers this kind of training, not to mention the 1000+ sales tag, including room/board, transportation, might even be more.

I guess the military trains me to do this for free

[synergy]

dialog!!!
AWESOME!

No, capacity isn't everything. But when I can have it, without needing to really trade anything pertinent off...then I want it.

Could be we wacking tango's overseas with M16A1's and 20 round mags? Sure we could...but we know there is better weaponry that helps us better fight through even the fluke gunfight.

As Pa_patriot pointed out, there is a hell of a lot more to winning gunfights than having extra rounds....but I don't think anyone here can make the argument that it's EASIER to win an extended gunfight with a j-frame than with a Glock 19.

[NineseveN]

I'm gonna work backwards a bit here because I want to address this part first.

Now I may be underestimating my enemy, but if I am stuck in a situation where it is three of them vs me, I am not going to just say, "well, I am outnumbered, I guess I'll beg for mercy or die." No, I am going to fight, and until that time comes, I am going to strive to posses all the variables above so that I can dramatically increase my chances of surviving such an encounter.

I didn't say that you should reduce yourself into a quivering, begging mass of manpuss. I think you might be underestimating the potential of your enemy, but that's, as you suggested, a variable. It's completely possible that when your time comes to be assailed by 3 or more thugs, they'll all be incompetent or impaired to the extent that allows you to overcome a severe deficit in odds, but that goes back to what I said about acts of god, freak mishaps and luck. If your roll of the dice lands you buffoons instead of seasoned killers, that's just a stroke of luck that ended up in your favor. Neither training nor capacity can really influence that. I don't think resistance is useless, only that the odds are not in your favor. The odds in blackjack aren't really in your favor either, but some people end up taking the house anyway. Most people don't, most people can't, hell most can't even afford to play, but some can. Unless you know that you're one of those people, it's probably best to focus on how to avoid playing the game in the first place than trying to learn how to be a better card player (although that doesn't hurt, it just doesn't as help as much as the former IMHO).

Well, it would be a gamble. I am by no means trying to say that a Master Class sport shooter, or a well trained combat/tactical shooter is going to be successful every time in any situation, let alone a situation where the defender is outnumbered. However, I would still put my $$$ on a well trained shooter against multiple random street thugs.

Well sure, I guess there are people who are betting on the Cincinnati Bengals to win the Superbowl next year too.

In all seriousness, I can't dispute where you'd decide to put your money, it's a guess and there's nothing empirical out there to counter it. To me, it seems like common sense that one would have to be extraordinary to move faster than 3 or more people can pull a trigger, dodge multiple shots per second, present their own weapon and fire at 3 or more targets while moving that are likely to be moving by that time as well...all the while, this is occurring at or near contact distances. If the scenario were 3 armed thugs 15-25 yards away, then yes, I'd put my money on any good marksman with an accurate weapon of substantial quality. As the distance decreases, the required skill to hit with speed decreases and the chances that one will score a lucky hit increase dramatically. Anyone can manage to put a few basketballs through a hoop quickly if the hoop is 3 feet or less away (lay-ups). But as you move that distance out, it starts to require a great level of skill to do that consistently (beyond the free-throw or 3 point line).

The reason for that is that there are many variables that are going to affect the 3>1 dynamic.

But to what extent?

a. high quality weapon

This affects you more than it does them. Your gun needs to function 100%, theirs don't. If your gun malfunctions, it's game over for you. It would require all of their guns to malfunction at the same time for it to be an automatic game over for them. Against 3 thugs, it would still take 2 different guns to malfunction to put you at level odds since you're already behind the curve.

and capacity

Unless you're thinking that a high percentage of thugs carry 1911's, capacity works in their favor even more than it does yours. You have 18 shots in your Glock, they have 54 shots between the 3 Glocks they have. True, some thugs have been known to carry little .22's and Ravens or Lorcins, but Glocks are easy to come by on the street these days. The cheap guns are throw-away pieces. To my knowledge, they're used for premeditated murders more often than outbursts of gang violence (which means they carry their Glocks for daily duty, but when they set out to put someone specific in the dirt, they take the Saturday Night Specials with them so they can toss them and not have a gun with a body on it in their possession). I knew a gang banger once that had a collection of Sig Sauer pistols that would make many on this forum cream their pants, but he also had a Lorcin or two stashed away for special circumstances (or so he said).

b. discipline of the shooter/ability to cope with stress

Some thugs see more combat than some of our own military troops. This is one of those things you can't control for them. Now, it helps you tremendously to have these skills, but it's not enough, IMHO, to negate the inequity of 3 guns firing at you for every 1 time you can fire yours at 3 different targets in 3 different places moving at 3 different speeds, possibly in 3 different directions.

c. ability to consistently get rounds on target

Again, this matters more for you than them. They only need an 11% hit rate to hit you as many times as you hit each of them (if you can manage a 100% hit rate). Assuming equal speed, by the time you fire 3 shots at three targets, you're looking at 9 shots incoming (unless you get lucky enough to score CNS hits or otherwise get a one shot stop), one hit on you out of 9 shots is 11%. If they manage a 33% hit rate (each of them hits you once and misses twice), that's a 300% disparity in force. Now, maybe you're 3 times as fast at hammering the trigger as they are...you get three shots off where they each get off one. You're now only equaling their force, and it requires you to be 100% to hit each of them once, at that speed. Only one of them needs a hit to injure you. I mean, we can game this out as far as we want, but if we're assuming contact distances, by the time you get 18 shots off, again assuming you're 3 times as fast as they are, you're still taking roughly the same amount of rounds incoming between the 3 of them (again, barring a CNS hit or someone tucking tail and running). There are a lot of ways this can go, but there aren't many of them that I would consider in the single man's favor. At best, you might come close to evening the odds, but with 3 or more shooters, I don't see you putting them into your favor by having more capacity in your gun. In fact, barring close cover combined with sufficiently fast feet, eyes, hands and mind, I don't see it occurring without a great deal of luck.

d. knowledge of movement techniques and ability to effectively use cover

This helps, if there is cover and you can get to it. There are many places and situations where cover might not be immediately available. Concealment is more likely than cover in some places, and concealment isn't so much of a game changer in the situations I'm thinking of. Capacity doesn't necessarily help you get to cover when we're talking contact distances.

e. high situational awareness

This is the number one game changer IMHO, but only if it is used to keep you out of the gun fight in the first place (which negates the criticisms I had of jcabin's thoughts). The only gun fight you can surely win is the one you avoid.

f. familiarity with weapon/ability to efficiently correct malfunctions

This affects you more than it does them. Your gun needs to function 100%, theirs don't. If your gun malfunctions once, you're out of the fight until you clear the malfunction. It would require all of their guns to malfunction at the same time for them to be in a similar situation.

I just don't feel so confident that the average thug is going to be as effective at putting rounds on target as a well trained/experienced shooter which by itself is going to do a lot to even the odds.

At 7 yards or less, with a 3 to 1 show of force in their favor, they don't even need to be half as good as you are to put 3 times as many rounds into you as you put into each of them (or manage a 1:1 ratio).