There's no need to have more than about 5-8 rounds in a handgun unless you are just a really bad shot...

Arfcom transplants

When was the last time you saw someone's friends press the attack after you shot the first guy?

So why do we outfit our troops with more than one bullet?

That's not what a fudd is.
Because fighting a war requires offense. A pistol is conceptually a defensive weapon.
They're not even opinions. They're facts.

You're gonna need a bigger bait

It's not bait.

Attached: 1527260031812.png (1233x957, 210K)

It's not bait, and you can't prove me wrong either.

>They're not even opinions. They're facts.

You're a faggot.

That's a fact and not an opinion.

except if you're david hogg then you get two armed security with 15 round mags cool got it thanks

“We do not have large magazines so we shoot more. We have large magazines so we manipulate the gun less.” Clint Smith

So if you magically had two pistols that were the exact same in almost every way (weight, size, etc) except one could hold eight bullets, and one had fifteen, you think the one with less rounds is better? Cause it'd make you more careful presumably? You underestimate what panic and adrenaline will do to you, and no, you are not tougher than that. Not without training.

>Jamals hunt in packs
>Modern doublestack guns offer little in way of disadvantage anymore
>Nobody gurenteed you a one shot stop
>Nobody gurenteed you a stationary, nearby target
Also, I carry a low capacity pistol. Im just not retarded enough to think theres no such thing as an advantage to doing otherwise

Attached: received_1668493446532584.jpg (1920x934, 178K)

youse be toastin in a troll bread

Attached: 1529766433548.png (1280x958, 1007K)

You need as many rounds as you need. which is why it's always better to have more. If I have 20 rounds and only need 3 i don't have to fire the extra 17. If i have 6 rounds and I need 7 im fucked.

OP, what is the point of going with a small capactiy?

OP is either trolling or litterally retarded but in any case just to play deviled avacado:
>Reloading a pistol is not hard
>Doing so quickly under duress is not hard
>Git gud

Buy another gun

New York reload is best reload

>So why do we outfit our troops with more than one bullet?
handguns are pretty much useless in a military context which is why the vast majority of troops of any nation do not carry them, By the way since faggots with glocks and a round in the chamber are very common these days, its illegal for enemy surrendered/pows to be escorted by troops with a round in the chamber You really are just dangerous useless faggots

youtube.com/watch?v=QxlVHQF1BQ4

youtube.com/watch?v=Uw-0nfVC2Rk

Actual combat causes poorer accuracy than at the range. Regardless, more bullets always better unless tradeoffs have to be made (e.g. a larger magazine that has a greater chance of jamming)

>Not relevant, since you should be using a rifle or shotgun at home anyway.

What about people who can own one gun?

>bait this shitty
No (You) for you ya dumb nigger. Kill yourself.

Attached: 1529422020752.png (211x244, 72K)

Man I so want the chance to ventilate jamal with my P38 or BHP. Double/Single stack doesn't matter to me, as long as it's classy.

Attached: 20526139_1645617782177488_3065290853154014707_n.jpg (720x960, 87K)

A thread died for this....we already have a revolver thread going.

Attached: 1527980216370.jpg (1734x1287, 1.01M)

Carry nothing that a gentleman would not

A gang just made the news where I live getting mass arrested and charged for shooting up places in a group. That's already an attack being pressed. They don't care about their friends getting shot, they leave them for dead regularly anyway when that happens.

So chlamydia is fine?

Just OP being a faggot again.

Attached: Trash.png (404x266, 182K)

No need for double stack mags.

>two pistols that were the exact same in almost every way (weight, size, etc)
But they are not the same in every way. Increasing magazine capacity requires trade offs, such as smaller caliber and double stack mags.
>Nobody gurenteed you a stationary, nearby target
We're talking about a pistol here.
True, but you will not need more than a few unless you miss a lot.
>its illegal for enemy surrendered/pows to be escorted by troops with a round in the chamber
Citation needed.
>Actual combat causes poorer accuracy than at the range
No, undisciplined shooters cause poor accuracy.

>We are talking about a pistol here
So... Inform your opponent that your carrying a pistol will get them to walk up slowly and let you shoot them? Neat

Well shit. Guess you dont need sights either then

>be me
>have 15 round mag
>also good shot
>get attacked
>use 3 shots to neutralize threat
>have 12 shots remaining instead of 3-5 to deal with any more threats in area
wow yeah having more rounds in the exact same size gun is fucking stupid you got me

There is no need to have more than a flintlock with one shot unless you cant hit a human at 5 feet. A handgun is a sidearm, designed to repel surprise attacks at close range. You think Jamal's buddies are going to keep attacking you after you blow a .50 caliber hole in the first one's chest?

You're refusing to respond to the question. With your logic, all other variables removed, suggests you think less ammo is better.

With the number of pistols today, and options, there can be negligible weight differences anyway.

Or let's put it like this, of you had a pistol with a fifteen round capacity, would you only put five in it? You want to save that half pound, really?

I'd much rather discharge my 9mm inside my home than my semiauto 12 gauge

>But they are not the same in every way. Increasing magazine capacity requires trade offs, such as smaller caliber and double stack mags.
Remington sells a double stack 1911 that holds 15 .45acp thats barely any larger than a standard 1911. I'll take 15 over 8

>There's no need
and just who in the hell would you be to tell me what my "needs" are?

The pistol is conceptually a defensive weapon. It is meant to repel surprise attacks at close range. In the extremely unlikely event that a civilian would find himself in a long range shootout, he should use a rifle.
It's not stupid, just unnecessary.
Repeating firearms are better than single shots, but there is a point of diminishing marginal return.
All other variables are not removed.
>Or let's put it like this, of you had a pistol with a fifteen round capacity, would you only put five in it? You want to save that half pound, really?
It's not about saving weight. It's about knowing what your design priorities are. Capacity is a low priority unless you're just a really bad shot.
With no disrespect intended or implied, you're just wrong. I'm sorry, but a properly loaded 12 gauge shotgun is so much more effective than a 9mm that there's really no comparison. It's not even up for debate.

>who in the hell would you be
A thoughtful and well meaning member of the gun owning community whose opinions you should at least consider before getting all defensive.

Everyone is a really bad shot in high stress situations.
The most deadly shootout in police history involved revolvers, and one of the assailants missed all 6 shots at point blank, aiming at one of the officers on the concrete.

>Everyone is a really bad shot in high stress situations.
That's just wrong. You CAN be a good shot. You just have to keep your head and not panic.

Not grandma with parkinsons.

Also, Tyrone hopped up on PCP isn't going to feel 7 rounds of 45 until his heart stops (or you tag his head).

Moreover, why enforce arbitrary limitations?
A handgun should have the highest capacity possible for its caliber.
That is elegant engineering.

i am a really bad shot and i want more bullets so i can spray and pray

Attached: 1515445380311.jpg (640x480, 72K)

A person with Parkinson's probably couldn't safely handle a gun anyway.

>Also, Tyrone hopped up on PCP isn't going to feel 7 rounds of 45 until his heart stops (or you tag his head).
If you can't kill him with 7 45 caliber slugs, I doubt you would get a chance to shoot him the 8th time.

>Moreover, why enforce arbitrary limitations?
Who said anything about enforcing arbitrary limitations? I didn't.

>A handgun should have the highest capacity possible for its caliber.
All else being equal, I would agree with you, but all else is not equal.

He should use what he has access to. I for one do not keep my ak platform rifle in my anus

Same. One of them will get him.

Shut the fuck up.

This.
>That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>There's no need to have more than about 5-8 rounds in a handgun unless you are just a really bad shot.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Opinion disregarded.

are you the same guy from the hair trigger thread? you sure type like that guy, goddamn why do people feel the need to go on the internet and start fights? do whatever the fuck you want man idk go skydiving, start painting, fuck your grandma idgaf desu

Attached: 1529627135649.jpg (540x540, 56K)

>his gat doesn't skrat
luh MAO

Still refusing to answer.

and... Since we don't know shit about each other then we should probably equip what we see fit.

oh, chu! :333

>ITT: massive faggot learns english, immediately posts on Jow Forums

Attached: 1529646468839.jpg (500x376, 66K)

1911 and Banquet are you me bro? I appreciate you.

On the contrary, if you're not carrying a double-stack semi-auto with at least two spare magazines, you shouldn't be carrying.

Revolvers and 1911s actually should be banned for being carried. They are liabilities.

>Handguns are dogshit at killing people.
YOUR handgun might be.

Attached: BFR.jpg (800x600, 111K)

>What is .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, 10mm, etc.?