What size magazine should I use in a handgun for self-defensive purposes? Obviously one round is too few, unless you're Scaramanga, and infinite rounds is implausible. Thanks in advance for the advice.
Despite what some ignorant people would have you believe, there's no set answer. An arbitrary X number of rounds may be plenty in one circumstance and woefully inadequate in another. Magazine capacity pertains to firepower, the measure of the amount of fire a firearm can put on target in a given time. That's ONE dimension of a defense weapon's utility. All else being equal, more firepower is better than less. There are other dimensions, too: stopping power (the effectiveness of the ammunition), accuracy, weight, controllability, concealability, reliability. Generally speaking, these qualities are such that a higher degree of them is better than a lesser degree. But some of these qualities can only be increased at the expense of some other quality. Stopping power and firepower are often trade-offs. For a given amount of weight, you can carry fewer bigger bullets than you can small ones. Weight and firepower are an obvious trade-off. Controllability and stopping power. And, of course, not all defensive shooters are equally situated. Some shooters can effectively handle a .500 S&W Magnum snubbie; others have difficulty with a .25 automatic. Some (e.g., urban dwellers) may need smaller, concealable handguns, while others (e.g., suburbanites) would sacrifice concealability for the greater power of a rifle or shotgun. Assuming a capable shooter and an appropriate environment, a rifle or shotgun are better choices than a handgun. A handgun is really a poor person stopper (there was that case a month or two back about the lady who shot an intruder five times...after which, he left and only because he didn't realize her gun was EMPTY). In a desperate situation, ANY gun/capacity is better than NONE, but it is definitely better to have more shots than fewer. As to the charge that higher magazine capacities make for mass shootings? The evidence doesn't really bear that out. A 30-round magazine can be emptied in a few seconds (provided one isn't really aiming). Most mass shootings take place over many minutes; the killer, facing unarmed victims who are cowering for their lives, can take his time. On the other hand, any arbitrary magazine limitation could have big, negative consequences for the defensive shooter. Having a 10-round magazine in a situation where you needed 11 shots can be fatal. So, the answer to your question is that your magazine capacity should be as large as possible when balanced against all of your other needs. It's not a silly reductive single number like a lot of politicians--who know nothing about guns--would presume to tell us. (And, yes, I realize you're not earnestly asking the question--you've already decided you're not going to hear arguments from those who know lots more than you do--but I've answered the question seriously in case any one else cares to learn/discuss.)
Those are good points. I think in my (admittedly limited) experience with firearms, I've been more aware of accuracy and controllability more than the other factors. I didn't even think about issues of weight and concealability. Of the few firearms I've used, I've never felt them to be too heavy, but I have recognized a difference in using heavier guns. (sidenote: Is higher kickback a result of higher firepower or higher stopping power? I'm not quite clear on the distinction between the two). Concealability is not an issue beyond storage because I wouldn't carry a gun outside of my residence except for transporting it to another destination. Well, it seems to me that depending on the type of shotgun, it would have fewer shots and yet more stopping power than a handgun. I've never used a rifle, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the benefit is that they have equal to or greater than the number shots in handgun and better stopping power than a handgun? The handgun that I have, I've only ever used for sporting (not hunting, but shooting at targets basically). Reload time would also be a factor in mass shootings too. Certainly, after reading your first few paragraphs I realize that there would be an upper limit of a magazine size that balances against the other factors you described. Obviously a magazine size of 100,000 would be impractical for personal use in a handgun in terms of weight, controlability, and concealability. But surely there would be a lesser, reasonable number? Despite your doubt, I appreciate your response and I did take the time to read your post. Part of the reason it's posted in here is to remove some of the absurdity and incivility of Red Room threads on the subject, which usually devolve into nothing worth discussing or learning from. Edit: Right on queue, frontline is here to demonstrate the aforementioned absurdity and incivility.
In shooting, the term is recoil. It's the old equal-and-opposite reaction from physics. The heavier a bullet is and/or the faster it goes out the muzzle, the more it pushes back against the shooter. A lighter gun is pushed more quickly than a heavier one, so light guns tend to transmit recoil more sharply to the shooter. I once rented a Smith & Wesson 642 (small, lightweight .357 Magnum revolver) and that was the most unpleasant little bastard to shoot, even though I've fired FAR larger handgun calibers. A .44 Magnum from a large frame revolver is pleasant to shoot all afternoon; shooting one of the same bullets from a pocket Derringer is downright painful. Stopping power is a measure of how effectively a given caliber stops a person. Generally speaking, bigger bullets and/or faster bullets (more energy, more momentum) are better stoppers. A .45 (large handgun bullet) is much more apt to stop someone than a .32 (a smallish handgun bullet). Rifle bullets and shotgun slugs have enormous energies compared to handgun bullets, and so are much more effective stoppers. Bullet design factors in as well, but that's making the discussion too involved. Maybe not, but a lot of people do carry concealed. And if you do, you don't want a huge, heavy gun. Yes, but shotgun shells are HUGE compared to pistol or most rifle rounds. An 8-round magazine for a shotgun is bigger than a 30-round magazine for an AR-15. A person who chooses a traditional pump or semi-auto shotgun for defense would rather have a few shots of tremendous energy than a lot of shots of lower energy. There's no right answer. If you use up your tube of shotgun shells, you're vulnerable during the (comparitively long) reload time. If you rely on a smaller weapon with greater firepower, you may fail to stop the threat. You pays your money and you takes your chance! Pretty much. Rifles--particularly those that fire modern high velocity cartridges--hit very hard. Could be, but for the most part hasn't. If magazine limitations are put in place because of what could happen, then why allow ANY size magazine? Magazine limits could hinder an offensive shooter, but, remember, he's shooting at people who are unarmed. The limit would ALSO hurt a defensive shooter, and he's using his weapon against someone who is armed and/or dangerous. Again, it would depend. If it's for carry and weight and concealability are your concern, you might go with a 5-shot revolver. If you want a gun to keep in the house in case of trouble, a shotgun with 6-10 rounds or a rifle with a 20 or 30 round magazine would be advised. I know it sounds like a cop-out, but for capacity the rule is AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. There's no limit I can speak of that would work in all circumstances; if I have to name one, I'll say 1000 rounds (though, IMHO, most magazines that contain 50 or more rounds are so friggin' heavy that they start becoming an impediment--firepower is trading-off portability/responsiveness). Yes, you did and props for that. I've responded earnestly to what you asked in the follow-up.
If it's as thick as a phonebook, is it still a magazine? Cuz, bride magazines, Sears catalogs, and Movies Unlimited catalogs are friggin' tomes.
For self defense my carry pistol holds 8 and I keep 2 spare mags, for home defence my shotgun carries 7 and I keep a backup weapon that holds 32 (in a shoulder holster) next to it.
I have no defensive capability, because I only have a 45 pound longbow. That said, one hit to the boiler room and you have about 30 seconds to say your prayers. BTW during that 30 seconds I've fired off about five more shots to your vitals. The coroner/forensics guys will get a kick out of your entry and exit wounds, if that's any consolation.
Despite the fact that the poll is flawed and sarcastic, I'll bite. How many do we need? That depends on the purpose of the gun. For my concealed carry, I normally have either 18 (when I carry a revolver - six in, two speadloaders) .357's or 25 (8+1, 2 extra 8 round mags) when I carry my 1911. For home defense, I have an AR-15 right by the bed, with a 30 round in and 10 30 rounders in the nightstand. I live in a good neighborhood... but we had a district attorney tragically attacked in her home in a good neighborhood only a couple weeks ago(http://www.wmctv.com/story/21590254/asst-district-attorney-attacked-in-her-home). She was actually in Memphis. I have heard she is anti-gun. I wonder if that will change. Based on the mode of operation of home invaders, I want to be able to easily suppress 3-6 large, armed men in my home to protect my wife. Should I be able to have a 100 round magazine? Yes. Would I? No - they aren't reliable enough. What libtards don't seem to be capable of understanding is that in the Aurora and Gabby Giffords shootings, these guys came in with aftermarket magazines that held 1.5-3.5x as many rounds as standard capacity mags. Aurora had what, a 100 round magazine vs. a standard 30 round? Lives were saved by that. It is a LOT harder to clear a jam than it is to change a magazine. I COULD die in a firefight if my gun jams due to an unreliable magazine!
Absurdity and incivility? Yes it would be nice if you Chad, along with Garamet, Demi, Gul, Liet, and Diacanu would stop with the absurdity and incivility. This thread is more proof of the absurdity from you.
Yeah, that would probably be sufficient for any scenario short of the Chinese Army rolling into town... Myself, I keep a S&W M&P .45 with 10 rounds in it and a second 10 round magazine. I used to keep a Beretta 92FS (15-shot 9mm), but I've become biased toward stopping power over firepower. A 9mm might expand, but a .45 will never shrink. If it were legal here in California, I'd use a Glock 21 (13-shot .45) and have more firepower. I have a Glock 20 (15-shot 10mm) which is, IMHO, the ULTIMATE combination of stopping power and firepower, but, alas, good 10mm ammo is expensive and a little difficult to come by. I have ARs and shotguns, but the fairly tight spaces in my home make long guns difficult to manuver.
