The question of ammo capacity is often one of the first asked by people new to concealed carry, right behind “what gun should I buy?” For the novice shooter, the issue usually revolves around the tension between preparedness and convenience. You want to be prepared for the worst, but you still have to live your life, right? If carrying more ammo seems like it will be too much of a disruption in your life, you’re more likely to lean toward carrying a small, low capacity handgun.
But it’s not just novice handgun owners who are concerned with ammo capacity. Shooters with decades of training and experience, including survivors of actual gunfights, frequently debate this topic with others and even mentally wrestle with it themselves. For the skilled shooter, it may be a question of whether to carry the gun they’re most familiar with, like, for instance, the relatively low-capacity Colt 1911, versus a gun they don’t shoot quite as well, but offers more than double the ammo capacity like a Glock 17. Or perhaps they believe that their skill with a handgun will negate the disadvantage of lower ammo capacity, so they can get away with carrying a small pocket pistol.
For either group, this is a complex topic with lots of factors to consider. In the video below, I’m not trying to offer any definitive answers, but I’ve got a few thoughts to add to the debate.
Full video transcript below:
How much ammo capacity do you need in your concealed carry gun? A lot of people out there will tell you that the odds of needing to use that firearm at all are extremely low, and if you do, a small, five-shot revolver should be more than enough to take care of the problem in all but the most extreme cases.
On the other hand, you’ve got people who say it’s not so much the odds, but the stakes that matter. Because it’s your life or the lives of your family members on the line, you shouldn’t compromise so easily just for the sake of convenience. You should carry a medium or full-size double stack handgun with a spare magazine and maybe even a backup gun.
The problem with these two perspectives is that we can’t easily dismiss either one of them because they’re both perfectly reasonable ways to approach the question of ammo capacity. So I’m going to tell you right up front: I can’t give you a clear cut answer here. But I’m going to share a few of the factors to consider when you’re thinking about this issue.
First, let’s talk about the numbers. How many rounds are actually fired in real-world incidents where civilians use a gun in self-defense? Unfortunately, there is not any comprehensive database for statistics on these kind of encounters. But when we look at some of the informal data that has been gathered from various sources, there are some pretty clear trends that start to emerge.
In the overwhelming majority of the incidents where an armed civilian fires a shot in self-defense, probably 70 to 90% of them are able to resolve the situation within 3 or 4 rounds, and usually closer to one or two rounds. Every once in awhile, the good guy fires more like 5 to 8 rounds. And in some very rare instances, we see round counts in the low double digits. And if you look more closely into those instances with the higher round counts, in many cases, the suspect was actually disabled after the first couple of shots, but that wasn’t immediately obvious to the good guy, so they kept firing until the gun was empty or it was clear there was no more threat.
That would seem to support the idea that a low capacity gun is adequate most of the time. But I would be reluctant to jump to that conclusion because we can’t just consider ammo capacity by itself. Low ammo capacity is usually a quality of small handguns. Small guns are harder to draw from concealment, and they’re harder to shoot quickly and accurately.
Karl Rehn is a shooting instructor who’s done a lot of research on this kind of thing, and a couple of years ago, he put together a little exercise. He had students of various skill levels shoot a drill that’s designed to replicate the conditions of the typical close-range gunfight. First, they shot the drill with a medium or full-size pistol and then they did it again with a smaller pocket pistol. For the most skilled shooters, there was an average of just 3% difference between their two scores. The gap was a little wider with intermediate students. The novice shooters — they didn’t have great scores with the larger guns to begin with, and then their scores dropped an average of 20% when they used the pocket guns. This suggests that the less skilled you are with a handgun in general, the more likely it is that a small gun is going to be a handicap for you.
On the other hand, every year there are hundreds — probably thousands of untrained gun owners who manage to defend themselves with small, low capacity underpowered handguns. How is this possible? It’s at least partly thanks to what we call the psychological stop. The attacker sees the gun, or gets shot at, or even gets hit by a bullet that’s not immediately fatal, and he decides that he would rather be somewhere else. Psychological stops are great, but we cannot count on them. Some people don’t care that they’ve got a gun in their face or that you just shot their buddy, and those people are very dangerous. They will not stop attacking unless we make their body stop working and that requires us to put bullets in the right place very quickly. Is a handful of rounds out of a pocket pistol adequate to do that? Again, probably so. But sometimes it’s not and nobody knows for sure how likely that kind of encounter is.
I do think it’s safe to say, however, that ammo capacity — and gun choice in general — is rarely the deciding factor in an armed encounter. When an armed citizen loses a fight, it’s often because they failed to recognize danger early enough or because they failed to act quickly and decisively. These are the results of inadequate training and mental preparation, not inadequate equipment.
So, back to the ammo capacity thing, I think a highly skilled shooter with a lot of training can probably get away with carrying a small, low capacity handgun like a snub nose revolver or a single stack pocket 9mm.
If you haven’t had much training, then statistically, there’s a better than average chance that if you get into trouble, you can also get away with carrying a small, low capacity handgun. But you’re really playing the odds. Most people are capable of carrying a bigger gun than they think they can, but if you really believe you can only carry a small gun, if that’s what allows you to carry every day, then go for it. Just understand that it’s possible the small gun will not be adequate. It could be that there’s not enough ammo, or you might have a hard time hitting your target, or you might not be able to grab that small grip quick enough. There is just more than can go wrong with a small gun, and under-trained people somehow end up more often being the victims of bad luck. Don’t let the mere fact that you are armed lull you into a false sense of over-confidence.
I think the bigger problem with a novice shooter using a small gun is not the ammo capacity and not that it’s inadequate for self-defense. It’s that learning how to shoot is a lot more difficult if all you have is a small handgun. There is more recoil, and people tend to develop issues with flinching and other bad habits. At the range they fatigue more easily and really, shooting these small guns is just not as fun. Newer gun owners are a lot more likely to lose interest or get discouraged if they are trying to learn with a small gun – I see this happen in shooting classes all the time. I would much rather see people learn the basics on a medium or full-size gun, and if they don’t want to carry that, then maybe they can carry a small gun with the same type of action and trigger as their training gun. Or if they don’t want to buy two guns, maybe compromise and look into a double-stack subcompact 9mm. Something like a Glock 26 is much more forgiving for a new shooter than a Glock 43, or a snub nose revolver.
I realize I’ve just scratched the surface of the capacity debate here — I didn’t talk about reloads or larger low-capacity revolvers. But I think the bottom line is that concerns about capacity should take a back seat to getting relevant training from a qualified instructor. Carrying around lots of ammo is good, knowing how to shoot is better, and avoiding trouble altogether is best.
Irrelevant. Concealed carry has nothing to do with what is likely to happen. It is about what is ridiculously unlikely to happen and yet allows you to prevail.
We are at war. Our war is sporadic. Most days do not feel like wartime, but the war may erupt at any time
and in any place, and as civilians we must deal with it, confront it, or escape it with only those things we have with us at the time…as we go about our normal, otherwise-mundane daily lives. The war may then be brought to us by a lone individual with a knife or by a group armed with fully-automatic rifles.
In a different time, responsible EDC might include a snub revolver or a subcompact pistol. Five or six rounds and a weapon with a practical range of 10 yards or less can be sufficient when the context involves surviving assault from a mugger or two. Be able to demonstrate that you’re armed and not willing to be a victim, maybe even to give one of them a wound if they come with violence, and you’re fairly well equipped. Today, however, you may have to survive a concerted attack by a heavily armed, trained group who will not run away or willingly let you escape, and who will fight to the death.
Given the context of what can happen to ordinary citizens today, your EDC should allow
you to: Engage in a sustained firefight (20-50 rounds), engage at longer distances (25 to 50 yards). This requires a larger pistol and at least one or two backup magazines. And this doesn’t even address the necessity for you to be able to treat a rifle or shotgun wound to an extremity and say in the fight – and/or – relay important tactical info to authorities from inside the battle.
So responsible EDC today is different from that just a few years ago. Or just wait around for the war to find you and find that despite your training you are ill equipped to survive your perdicament.
Please give an example of an armed citizen in a sustained gun fight like you described. I personally can’t find any and therefore can’t argue with anyone that high capacity weapons are needed.
Pulse night club.
While the Pulse night club shows how worthless gun free zones are it doesn’t illustrate why an armed citizen needs high capacity. An armed citizen with a five shot snubbie could have saved the day.
Bruce,
I can’t because while there are plenty of examples where this should have happened, folks do not get that we are at war and that they cannot choose to opt out of it. So they died. Surely you can think of plenty of these examples. This is my point.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
I have been following armed citizen stories for years. The closest examples I have seen of sustained gun fights have been home invasions but I haven’t come across any where an armed citizen is out and about. Still looking for actual examples of why an armed citizen needs high capacity.
“Please give an example of an armed citizen in a sustained gun fight like you described. I personally can’t find any and therefore can’t argue with anyone that high capacity weapons are needed.”
For me anyway, it helps to include the definition of “high capacity.” For the purposes of my comments here, I’ll say high capacity is anything greater than 10 rounds. The chances for an average civilian having to use a gun in self defense are slim and needing high capacity in that situation even slimmer. Does that mean you can bet your life on not needing a gun? No and the same logic applies to high capacity magazines. You probably won’t need it but it is good to have just in case and there is no sense in handicapping yourself especially when the bad guys won’t. Can’t you just reload? Sure but it takes time that might get you killed and adds the possibility of something else going wrong and putting your life at risk. Not worth it…
<>
For the average civilian, having to use a gun in self defense, for example, against threats like a mugger, are slim and virtually non-existent against waves of religious extremists. With your rationale, it sounds like everyone should be walking around with body armor, a handgun, rifle and a backpack of extra ammunition, medical supplies, etc. If the U.S. ever gets to that point, the terrorists have already won…
This is pure garbage. Your priority as a citizen is to escape the attackers. Let the police have the shootout with the goon, you are just trying to get out of the kill zone if they don’t flee. You will also find that in the less-than-gun-friendly states this is your only recourse. An extended gun battle just increases the chances that the attackers “random shots” can hit and there is nothing in most homes or businesses that will stop a bullet to act as cover. You should be working toward an exit and using your gun mostly to keep them down. Take the shot if you got it, but if not just spam a few bullets every second in their general direction and make for the door. There is nothing in your house worth your life.
“We are at war…”
Huh? I live in a rural town, in a rural state – I’m not “at war” with anyone.
“Given the context of what can happen to ordinary citizens today, your EDC should allow
you to: Engage in a sustained firefight (20-50 rounds), engage at longer distances (25 to 50 yards). This requires a larger pistol and at least one or two backup magazines….”
Those may be your choices, but stating that we should all be similarly prepared in our daily lives is ludicrous. I have no plans to engage ANYONE at 50 yards. At those distances, the chances that I can simply remove myself from the situation are quite high, which is exactly what I would do. Nor do I have any intentions of engaging in “sustained firefights.” My goal is to get the hell out of there ASAP and let the authorities handle it. I’m a civilian, not a LEO and not some fantasy tactical operator.
I have to agree with most of what “andyrutledge” says. Concealed carry isn’t for what’s likely to happen, since an armed encounter is extremely unlikely even for police. There are three things to consider:
1. If you find yourself having to fire on another person, you’ve already beat the odds in the worst possible way. Therefore, any consideration of what is likely to happen is already gone; the most unlikely thing has already happened.
2. Studies have shown that when trained shooters are shooting for real, they shoot about half as well as they do on the range. That’s why so many police shootings show such abysmal shooting. For untrained or minimally trained people, the gap will be wider (they’ll do worse).
3. Disregarding terrorism or active shooters, you may have to deal with multiple (at least two) assailants in a run-of-the-mill stickup. Given the poor stopping power of handgun bullets and your diminished shooting, you’re probably going to need more rounds than you think you will to stop the fight. (You can’t count on your assailant(s) running at the first shot, or any of the other platitudes you hear gun shop gurus and keyboard commandos recite.)
Ed Mireles, the FBI agent who finally killed Platt and Mattix at the end of the Miami shootout in 1986, was once asked how much ammunition you should have. His answer: “As much as you can carry.”
The difference being that Agent Mireles was a LEO, and they are in the business of capturing bad guys and therefore need more ammo and accessories than a CCW citizen. As a CCW citizen, I want to defend, disengage and depart. I am no longer a LEO, so I’m not out to capture or engage in a prolonged firefight in the name of public safety.
Studies have shown…..I’ve seen those numbers, and by and large LEOs don’t shoot as well as CCW citizens, because we practice more that they do. As a LEO, we went to the range maybe twice a year, maybe. We shot a prescribed course and went on our way, until I became a Range Officer and changed the course of fire to include shotgun, cover, movement and tactics. Some complained that it was too hard…..CCW citizens tend to take a serious attitude toward practice and drills and accuracy, knowing that the immunity of a LEO performing duties doesn’t apply, so we have to be that much better. I agree that carrying a spare mag is prudent, but I can’t justify carrying 3 15 rd mags, a BUG, and all the rest of stuff that I used to carry on my duty belt. I’m not going into battle on purpose, I’m carrying to defend myself.
Finally, I believe that a person must decide for themselves which gun, which caliber, where to carry and the amount of additional ammo or equipment to carry. As they say, your mileage may vary.
Carry the gun and ammo one finds comfortable and delivers confidence. A person cannot possibly be prepared for every scenario. Just carry some firearm to defend yourself and fellow citizens and kudos to Chris Baker for another excellent examination of an important topic.
Well, I say spend as much time as possible practicing at the range with your carry weapon …. best with an elevated heart rate, do some push ups or whatever, then work on accuracy either from a draw, or at least quick firing to target, at various distances, and use splatter targets, but work on mindlessly getting your first shot on target, which even if the zombie are wearing vests, it will hurt like hell, giving you that split second for a fatally accurate follow up shot … then maybe you won’t need to empty your mag? ?
I agree with Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch. Enough said!!!
One of my college professors once said, Everything is situational specific. As a Soldier on patrol in the High Lands of Vietnam I had to carry everything I needed on my back plus take turns carrying that damned heavy ass radio. I had at least one bandolier of loaded 20 Round magazines and two in a pouch. Maybe a hundred band twenty rounds. As a Police Officer I carried at least two high cap magazines in my duty bag and two spare mags on my equipment belt. That said I was expected to engage in combat and the more ammo the better. As a civilian my primary concern is for my own hide. Engaging armed bad guys is no longer my job. I feel perfectly comfortable with One spare Mag of 45 ACP and a pocket gun in 22 Mag. If I can’t take care of business then I should have brought a rifle 🙂
Of course it depends on where you live, occupation, etc. but I still think there are a lot of average armed citizens out there under the delusion that they need to “train” for scenarios that are so statistically unlikely, that it would be less paranoid to always leave their house in a haz-mat suit and carrying a lightning rod. The interwebs and lots of wannabe “operators” dispensing tactical knowledge as though we all need to aspire to being special forces isn’t helping with this. Be reasonable, be smart and be realistic. And most importantly, do everything in your power to avoid or remove yourself from situations where you need to use your firearm to begin with.