Glock Talk banner

Mag capacity and CIVILIAN shootings (not Law Enforcement)

8228 Views 281 Replies 84 Participants Last post by  fredj338
Posted this in response to another question on related topic. . . but thought I'd share it as it's own info on the Carry board.


A guy did a statistical analysis of more than a thousand CIVILIAN shootings, and found that:

75% of all civilian shootings are resolved with 5 rounds or less
95% of civilian shootings are resolved with 8 rounds or less

With 10+1 in your gun, the chances you'll need more ammo to finish the fight are near zero.

Also, the Active Self Protection guy has stated that out of however many hundreds or thousands of shooting videos he's seen, he's NEVER ONCE seen anybody have to reload and keep fighting. Any reloads always happened after the fight wound up being over.
261 - 280 of 282 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
40,433 Posts
I carry my g19 that is 15+1 and a spare mag that is a 20rd mag. I was just took a class and the statistics are that the average person will misss 92% of their shots from 7yrds in a stressful situation. I would rather have more rounds and a backup if there is a failure with that mag
The avg person doesnt carry a gun. Statistics are funny things, easily manipulated. I couldnt miss 92% on a target at 21ft in the dark. If i can see it i can hit it, even if i cant See it. I have done 100% on a 7y target blindfolded. That is training & practice. Sadly both are lacking in the ccw & leo culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nanuk

· Registered
Joined
·
40,433 Posts
Try to train and practice enough to be (much) better than average. With regard to handgun shooting skills in the general population, “average” isn’t a very high bar.

I would like to know where the instructor of the class got his/her data.

I just renewed my TN security guard license. All slow fire (not timed), no drawing, FBI QIT target. [email protected] Yds, [email protected] Yds, [email protected] Yds, [email protected] Yds and [email protected] Yds. Out of 12 souls renewing, only two (2) of us shot 50/50 (100%). One guy failed, I don’t know if the cut-off was 70% or 80%. Not a high bar.
In my county, ccw qual is 75rds at 3, 5, 7 on a full, size B27. 70% hit on target to pass, no time limit, yes i have seen people fail that. Many lea quals arent much better, even the vaunted fbi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nanuk

· Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
While John C. at Active Self Protection said he's never seen a civilian reload during a gun fight, I sure as all get-out don't want to be the first one to run dry or have a malfunction and get killed. Just don't want to be "that one guy" who didn't carry a spare mag and end up being a statistic! So I do carry a spare at all times.
Cheers,
crkckr
Yup. Better to have and not need...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,357 Posts
There are more reasons to carry spare mags than just running out of ammo. Accidentally dropping the mag in your gun or have it malfunction is also a possibility. I think about that more than ammo capacity, so I am willing to carry a 6 round gun and 1 spare, but if I have a 10 or 15 round gun, I'll still carry a spare.
Worker at Gander Mountain told me he would find a few handgun magazines on the floor just walking around the store every year
 

· Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Topics like this always make me mad paranoid so I've been carrying the 19 and two spare mags all summer. My sp101 snub and shield 1.0 being neglected right now 😂 kinda hard mentally to go with 15 rounds or 24 rounds on me when I can have 38.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,909 Posts
In my county, ccw qual is 75rds at 3, 5, 7 on a full, size B27. 70% hit on target to pass, no time limit, yes i have seen people fail that. Many lea quals arent much better, even the vaunted fbi.
The FBI qual includes shots at 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 25 yds, on a smaller target, with most strings from a concealed draw AND with time limits for each string. While not that tough, it is far tougher than the CCW course you referenced.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
40,433 Posts
The FBI qual includes shots at 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 25 yds, on a smaller target, with most strings from a concealed draw AND with time limits for each string. While not that tough, it is far tougher than the CCW course you referenced.
Agree, but generous times & the target, while smaller than a b27, still readily hit even at 25y, for a decent shooter. Most ccw quals are really useless, but its a very min std. I think the GAM is a good qual & what most ccw should be using. Though most ccw would fail, why it wont be seen.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,140 Posts
The FBI qual includes shots at 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 25 yds, on a smaller target, with most strings from a concealed draw AND with time limits for each string. While not that tough, it is far tougher than the CCW course you referenced.
Agree, but generous times & the target, while smaller than a b27, still readily hit even at 25y, for a decent shooter. Most ccw quals are really useless, but its a very min std. I think the GAM is a good qual & what most ccw should be using. Though most ccw would fail, why it wont be seen.
I personally don’t believe a CCW qual needs to be terribly stringent, nor those for LE. There’s precious little correlation between qual scores and success in real world shootings anyway. The training, on the other hand, ought to be as rigorous and stressful as safety will allow for Law Enforcement. It should be challenging and realistic for civilians who want to carry as well, but it obviously will have differences from that of LE

To a large degree, you can design qual courses that will eliminate some otherwise excellent police officers from their academy or training programs. Furthermore, a history or marginal or, worse, failed qualification scores are something that an officer has to walk around with for the rest of their career. They never go away, and those records are a sure bet to be subpoenaed by plaintiffs in a civil suit. It’s a potential factor for negligent training or retention lawsuits and despite the fact that an officer might improve greatly, any marginal or poor performances can come back to haunt.

The same can be said for civilian CCW. If there’s so little correlation, and basically no causation, between a super tough qual course and successful real world handgun use, then what’s the point of super tough quals? Quals aren’t training, after all, they’re basically a way to numerically quantify performance based on a snapshot in time that someone has has claimed is “good enough.” No matter how well a civilian ccw’er (Can I say this? Is it a real word?) is trained, you or I could design a qual course they would fail. What would be the point in doing so?

In my humble opinion only, the best combination is hard training but simpler quals. And furthermore, quals that are scored pass/fail rather than with a numeric percentage. In other words, X is the standard based on safety and a demonstrated fundamental ability to run the gun and hit a target. You either meet it or you don’t. How hard the standard was to meet isn’t so much the issue. It exists more to prove you’re not a menace and a danger to others than to attempt to predict whether or not you’ll be the next Wild Bill Hickok when the rubber truly meets the road.

Anyhow, silly schpiel concluded. Just one man’s musings.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
40,433 Posts
I personally don’t believe a CCW qual needs to be terribly stringent, nor those for LE. There’s precious little correlation between qual scores and success in real world shootings anyway. The training, on the other hand, ought to be as rigorous and stressful as safety will allow for Law Enforcement. It should be challenging and realistic for civilians who want to carry as well, but it obviously will have differences from that of LE

To a large degree, you can design qual courses that will eliminate some otherwise excellent police officers from their academy or training programs. Furthermore, a history or marginal or, worse, failed qualification scores are something that an officer has to walk around with for the rest of their career. They never go away, and those records are a sure bet to be subpoenaed by plaintiffs in a civil suit. It’s a potential factor for negligent training or retention lawsuits and despite the fact that an officer might improve greatly, any marginal or poor performances can come back to haunt.

The same can be said for civilian CCW. If there’s so little correlation, and basically no causation, between a super tough qual course and successful real world handgun use, then what’s the point of super tough quals? Quals aren’t training, after all, they’re basically a way to numerically quantify performance based on a snapshot in time that someone has has claimed is “good enough.” No matter how well a civilian ccw’er (Can I say this? Is it a real word?) is trained, you or I could design a qual course they would fail. What would be the point in doing so?

In my humble opinion only, the best combination is hard training but simpler quals. And furthermore, quals that are scored pass/fail rather than with a numeric percentage. In other words, X is the standard based on safety and a demonstrated fundamental ability to run the gun and hit a target. You either meet it or you don’t. How hard the standard was to meet isn’t so much the issue. It exists more to prove you’re not a menace and a danger to others than to attempt to predict whether or not you’ll be the next Wild Bill Hickok when the rubber truly meets the road.

Anyhow, silly schpiel concluded. Just one man’s musings.
Agree on training but a qual is just a measure of skill set. One can train until hell freezes over, never develop skills thru practice, most likely a failure against even modestly skilled attackers. The reason most unskilled win their fight, their attacker is even worse.
So imo, one cant exist without the other, training, practice, test of basic skills. Whether its pass fail or numeric, the result is the same. Its not unlike school, teach but test to measure a given result. Yes i think ccw should be able to meet a min skill set to carry in public; load, holster & reholster safely, hit the target in front of you at 21ft 90% of the time, say 20rds. I am a minority in that though. I have seen people at ccw quals that cant load their own pistol or find a safety or slide release. Most cant hit the b27 50% of the time, forget a zero.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14,442 Posts
I personally don’t believe a CCW qual needs to be terribly stringent, nor those for LE. There’s precious little correlation between qual scores and success in real world shootings anyway. The training, on the other hand, ought to be as rigorous and stressful as safety will allow for Law Enforcement. It should be challenging and realistic for civilians who want to carry as well, but it obviously will have differences from that of LE

To a large degree, you can design qual courses that will eliminate some otherwise excellent police officers from their academy or training programs. Furthermore, a history or marginal or, worse, failed qualification scores are something that an officer has to walk around with for the rest of their career. They never go away, and those records are a sure bet to be subpoenaed by plaintiffs in a civil suit. It’s a potential factor for negligent training or retention lawsuits and despite the fact that an officer might improve greatly, any marginal or poor performances can come back to haunt.

The same can be said for civilian CCW. If there’s so little correlation, and basically no causation, between a super tough qual course and successful real world handgun use, then what’s the point of super tough quals? Quals aren’t training, after all, they’re basically a way to numerically quantify performance based on a snapshot in time that someone has has claimed is “good enough.” No matter how well a civilian ccw’er (Can I say this? Is it a real word?) is trained, you or I could design a qual course they would fail. What would be the point in doing so?

In my humble opinion only, the best combination is hard training but simpler quals. And furthermore, quals that are scored pass/fail rather than with a numeric percentage. In other words, X is the standard based on safety and a demonstrated fundamental ability to run the gun and hit a target. You either meet it or you don’t. How hard the standard was to meet isn’t so much the issue. It exists more to prove you’re not a menace and a danger to others than to attempt to predict whether or not you’ll be the next Wild Bill Hickok when the rubber truly meets the road.

Anyhow, silly schpiel concluded. Just one man’s musings.
A civilian training doesn’t even have to be close to an LEO training. The civilian is told to break contact when possible where they LEO has to hunt down the threat. The LEO needs to be trained in moving and shooting where the civilian does not . It’s a plus but he isn’t expected to move toward the threat.
Requals in themselves aren’t training beyond reenforcement of muscle memory of the draw etc. However during a requal cycle, we would usually shoot a training course of fire of some type. Some had value, others not so much.
Simmuntions is where the real training happened for us.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,140 Posts
A civilian training doesn’t even have to be close to an LEO training. The civilian is told to break contact when possible where they LEO has to hunt down the threat. The LEO needs to be trained in moving and shooting where the civilian does not . It’s a plus but he isn’t expected to move toward the threat.
Requals in themselves aren’t training beyond reenforcement of muscle memory of the draw etc. However during a requal cycle, we would usually shoot a training course of fire of some type. Some had value, others not so much.
Simmuntions is where the real training happened for us.
Simmunition/FOF training can be excellent if done right, no doubt about it. Very useful.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
FWIW, I carry a 43X or a 43, and a spare mag for whichever gun I have on me at the time.

Having said that, probably 80% of the folks on this forum would feel less than optimally armed if they had a Gatling-style minigun and a 1,000 round drum magazine to feed it. They have no rational answer to refute your statistics, so stop trying to bring common sense to the discussion. At some point, they’ll call you a Democrat and tell you to just shut up.
Damn that would be the coldest thing you could ever be called too. A democrat. That would be fighting words!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
40,433 Posts
For me 10rd limits are worst at the range. At range, I enjoy using a 20rd for handgun and 30rd AR mag. Cut that to 10 and all I feel like I am doing is filling the mags all the time.
Think of it as conserving your ammo. You have to pause to reload.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
40,433 Posts

· Scottish Member
Joined
·
15,293 Posts
In my county, ccw qual is 75rds at 3, 5, 7 on a full, size B27. 70% hit on target to pass, no time limit, yes i have seen people fail that. Many lea quals arent much better, even the vaunted fbi.
The FBI qualification (2013), at least the one before the current one (2019), is quite a bit more difficult than your county’s requirement. If I recall correctly, FBI instructors are required 90% to pass, SA’s are 80% - on a FBI-QIT-99 target.

I’m not saying everyone that passes are “GM” material, but it isn’t a bad standard qualification. At least there is a time constraint, and drawing (more drawing in 2013 qualification). I’d like to see instructors meet 95% and SA’s meet 90%, but they aren’t asking me.

I use the FBI 2013 for qualification for the guards in our TN-PSO, as it seems to be a more appropriate method (our guards are unlikely to be shooting at all, but even less likely than shooting from low ready). Our internal requirement (2013 FBI) is notably more difficult than the state qualification for licensed guards - which is a little more difficult than your CCW requirement, but not much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fredj338

· Registered
Joined
·
40,433 Posts
The FBI qualification (2013), at least the one before the current one (2019), is quite a bit more difficult than your county’s requirement. If I recall correctly, FBI instructors are required 90% to pass, SA’s are 80% - on a FBI-QIT-99 target.

I’m not saying everyone that passes are “GM” material, but it isn’t a bad standard qualification. At least there is a time constraint, and drawing (more drawing in 2013 qualification). I’d like to see instructors meet 95% and SA’s meet 90%, but they aren’t asking me.

I use the FBI 2013 for qualification for the guards in our TN-PSO, as it seems to be a more appropriate method (our guards are unlikely to be shooting at all, but even less likely than shooting from low ready). Our internal requirement (2013 FBI) is notably more difficult than the state qualification for licensed guards - which is a little more difficult than your CCW requirement, but not much.
I agree, the fbi qual is quite good but times are very generous & 80% is pretty achievable by anyone that can shoot. I can shoot it cold for 95% in about half the time & i am old & sort of slow. I like the usam as well. Most ccw quals are a total joke & still some wont pass their first time thru.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEC-Memphis
261 - 280 of 282 Posts
Top