Why does it seem like so many people obsess over ammo capacity these days...

>to be not as effective
Ftfy*

Because more is better. Why am I going to decide on the worst day of my life, things are going to work out in my favor? Having more capacity doesn't hurt, it only helps.

As they say, there's no such thing as a stupid question user. Only stupid people.

>Something that there's probably less than a one in a million chance of even being applicable in a self defense scenario.
Keeping a threat pinned down so you can escape or move is hardly applicable to self defense? Nah that doesn't make sense.

Realistically nobody is going to use more than 6 shots worth in any reasonable home defense scenario, but why settle for less when having 20 bullets on hand doesn't cost you anything extra for a nightstand gun? Better to have them in the mag and not need them than to need them and have to reload in an already stressful situation. There are practically zero downsides to just having more and practically no advantages to intentionally having less.

6 shots in a revolver is likely adequate but humans like to worry about the unlikely scenarios where they'll need to fight off 30 crackheads. 90% of owning a home defense gun is peace of mind anyway, so whatever increases that is good for its owner.

Of course for carry purposes capacity directly increases size so you have to trade to see what fits for you.

>How many recorded civilian self defense situations are there even where reloading was involved while there was still a threat (rather than after the threat ended)?
What if you end up in one of the few where it becomes a factor? Why not be prepared for that if it doesn't harm you to do so? (and it doesn't)

>Having more capacity doesn't hurt, it only helps.
There's a difference between saying this, and claiming that one of the go to types of guns for home defense for the vast majority of the time that people have been using cartridge based guns isn't an effective choice for self defense.

>Keeping a threat pinned down so you can escape or move is hardly applicable to self defense?
I've only seen one documented instance of suppressing fire being used in something that could remotely be considered a self defense scenario, and it's the video of the guy mag dumping on full auto to hold off a SWAT team. Reminder that you're responsible for every bullet you fire.

>but why settle for less when having 20 bullets on hand doesn't cost you anything extra for a nightstand gun?
>Why not be prepared for that if it doesn't harm you to do so? (and it doesn't)
Because for many people it can costs the price of another gun, plus ammo costs for practice with that gun, plus needing to either spend additional range time to practice with that gun or spend less range time shooting other guns that you may own.

So you're just butthurt someone called your shotgun obsolete then? Sad.

all that typed out to say nothing

most of your arguments boil down to "its highly unlikely". wouldnt you also say that ending up in a hd or self defense scenario is not very likely either? yet it's practical to prepare for that isnt it? why settle for a measure that is adequate for the most likely situations and not opt for something that is more than adequate and covers remote, but still plausible, circumstances especially when the cost of doing so is a few more cents and a few more grams of weight?

>most of your arguments boil down to
Only arguments I've made are that I don't believe revolvers and shotguns have ceased to be suitable choices for self defense, and that suppressing fire isn't realistically applicable for self defense purposes due to liability purposes and that I only know of one instance where it was deployed in a something that could remotely be considered a self defense scenario.

>and covers remote, but still plausible, circumstances
What are you even considering "remote, but still plausible" if suppressing fire is a serious consideration?

Because reloading is fucking stressful

>I only know of one instance where it was deployed in a something that could remotely be considered a self defense scenario.
don't tease us like that, what happened?

>Only arguments I've made are that I don't believe revolvers and shotguns have ceased to be suitable choices for self defense
Which no one has said you can't choose
>What are you even considering "remote, but still plausible" if suppressing fire is a serious consideration?
Time to wake up a realize that home invasions aren't polite
Stop raiding

Attached: 20190704_020427.png (1920x1080, 709K)

youtube.com/watch?v=pdjcYjSsIok

Attached: fudd.png (274x184, 9K)

reason.com/2019/05/14/forensic-experts-find-no-evidence-that-houston-narcs-who-killed-dennis-tuttle-and-rhogena-nicholas-encountered-gunfire-as-they-entered-the-house/

Would an AR-15 or AK with drum mag made a difference in this case?

>assuming that you won't miss
>assuming that your hits will be enough to cause a psychological stop, since a hole in anything other than the CNS is not physiologically incapacitating
>assuming you will hit the CNS for an immediate physiological stop
That's a whole fucking lot of assumptions. Assumptions that don't have to be made with high capacity.

If you were in a life or death battle would you rather have 6 shots or 30+ shots?
Obviously 30+ shots.
Also, have you even watched some real bodycam shoots? Virtually no one is instantly incapacitated with a single shot, even with good shot placement.
Take your thinly veiled gun infringement political talk and go back to your own board noguns summerboy.

>shooting the dog
why are they always like this

Attached: sad.jpg (1280x720, 60K)

>my shot placement is perfect
>I make no mistakes
>headshot every time, bro

Attached: 1358993596804.gif (360x282, 1.64M)

uhhh bu-bu-but that never happens life isn't a movie LOL!

>Also, have you even watched some real bodycam shoots? Virtually no one is instantly incapacitated with a single shot, even with good shot placement.
You made the claim, now actually post some of these real bodycam shoots that involve shotguns not being able to reliably stop a person in one shot when using propper ammunition for the task and not birdshot. Only videos I've seen of people getting shot with shotguns and not being out of the fight after the first shot involved birdshot.

>What if you end up in one of the few where it becomes a factor?
I'm not worried about that. The chance is vanishingly unlikely, to the degree of absurdity. Why not EDC a .600 Nitro Express just in case you get charged by a Rhinocerous escaped from the zoo?

>Why not be prepared for that if it doesn't harm you to do so? (and it doesn't)
It does harm me to do so. A fullsize wonder 9 is a lot harder to CCW than a compact or a pocket revolver. Absurdly large magazines on a long gun make the gun more cumbersome to point. Now for certain applications it doesn't matter; I've got a glock 20 with a spare mag under my office desk. But I'm certainly not going to CC that fucker.

>If you were in a life or death battle would you rather have 6 shots or 30+ shots?
I'd rather have 30+.

Now you answer my question: You're going out for the evening with the wife. Are you carring 30+ rounds or are you carrying a compact?

Hey you're right. The police and atf should be a shining example and limit themselves to bolt action rifles

I always carry a G19 with an extra mag. Easily concealable under a t-shirt.

>under a T-shirt.
Cool. Now what about when you have to dress nicely? Or a you too young for that?

Compact with an extended magazine in thigh pocket

Stupid glow nigger

Not him but I wear a shoulder holster

>Compact with an extended magazine in thigh pocket
I'm glad we agree that there are disadvantages to high capacity arms in some situations.

Based and miamivicepilled

If you take the stance "most likely you won't need _____" then you don't need to carry a gun period. Carrying is all about being prepared for a highly unlikely but deadly situation.

A situation where you might need to defend yourself with a firearm is not that unlikely.
A situation where you need to defend yourself with a very large number of rounds in that firearm is vanishingly unlikely. It is disingenuous to consider those two the same thing.

Except for many people, these ridiculous standards for what your gun choice for self defense needs to be capable of require the purchase of an additional gun and a change of habits to accommodate as opposed to just using whatever gun they enjoy shooting the most and are the best shot with.

Reminder that these are much less of an issue if one actually trains for shots that will stop someone rather the 10 inch center of mass bullshit that many people push, or worse the bullets anywhere on the target and point shooting rather than using the sights philosophies.

>The chance is vanishingly unlikely, to the degree of absurdity. Why not EDC a .600 Nitro Express just in case you get charged by a Rhinocerous escaped from the zoo?

Think about it. In case you see yourself in a case of self-defense are you more likely to
a) face multiple opponents or get into a prolonged (more than 10 seconds) gunfight?
b) face a rhinoceros?

a) is completely reasonable even though rare, b) is completely absurd

reminder that some of even the most trained individuals have magdumped in their first gunfight

>b) face a rhinoceros?
Not a rhinoceros, but there was that case of the guy with the private zoo that let all his animals loose when he killed himself and did result in some incidents involving lions.

If their training went out the window the moment they needed to use it, then they weren't well trained.

>If their training went out the window the moment they needed to use it, then they weren't well trained.
Imagine believing you're better than others by dismissing their training.
And I didn't even say the training went out the window. You just can't perform the way you want to when you have no undergone stress inoculation.

Potential. The bigger issue is even if they killed every fuckhead who stormed their house they would have drugs planted in to justify this fuckery

>How many recorded civilian self defense situations are there
Enough that Judge Benitez cited several when he ruled the California mag capacity law unconstitutional.

jurist.org/news/2019/04/federal-judge-strikes-down-california-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/

You don't have to be "better" to recognize that training that doesn't stick when it's needed is bad training.

Whether I drop someone with my Ortgies or drop someone with a glock 19 with a stendo mag is none of your god damn business.

Strawman and moving the goalposts. Nice. I mean, it sucks that you have to resort to compound logical fallacies to justify your position, but I respect the dedication you bring to the task. Just out of curiosity, what’s your goal? What is the most optimal outcome you can envision for this thread?

Trannies sure are out in force today eh? Must be riled up from the dem debates.

Attached: rekt.gif (398x300, 2.4M)

op is a fudd bootlicker

Attached: 1553312283830.jpg (1080x1080, 117K)

He only cites 3 cases before going into ridiculous fantasies about SHTF scenarios and holding off legions of antifa. Also, all three cases cited seem to be more of failures to get good on the part of the shooter than anything else. The first case involves the shooter wasting multiple rounds on warning shots which would make me believe they also didn't attempt to aim at anything more precise than anywhere on the person they were shooting at, the second involves someone firing with one hand because they couldn't think to set down the phone that wasn't usable at the time, and the third involved a shooter so terrible that they managed to miss a man size target from less than 6 feet away so there's no reason to believe they made any attempt at good shot placement with the rest of the shots that they fired.

go be a retard somewhere else

I would say that capacity became king during the Rodney king riots.

This is the funniest shit I have I have ever seen.

oh thank you

Nice. More strawman and a whole shitload of moving the goalposts. How about you post videos of a shotgun making an instantaneous stop and drop. Instant incap is the issue at discussion here. Back your claim.

>More strawman and a whole shitload of moving the goalposts.
I don't think you know what those words mean.

>require the purchase of an additional gun and a change of habits to accommodate
You say this like it’s some mind bendingly onerous task. Going to the range is not a grim and horrible duty that cuts into your spare time. It’s more like a hobby, that people look forward to doing. Practicing with different guns is a thing, too. It’s about the same as the difference between driving your wife’s car as opposed to driving your car. I’m guessing you have very limited experience with firearms, and you encountered difficulties.

Here’s a tip; quit overthinking it. Shooting is just like golfing. You’re using a device to propel a projectile toward a particular spot you wish to hit. Ignore the hoplophobia and hysteria that guns trigger in certain demographics. Despite what you’ve been told, guns are not magic sticks that bring the boomdeath of the gods. Focus on the physics, ignore the social conditioning, and you just might find yourself having a good time at the range.

>if one actually trains for shots that will stop someone rather the 10 inch center of mass bullshit that many people push,
And what would those shots be, exactly?

>Must be riled up from the dem debates.
And wasn’t that a total shitshow from the start. It’s like they’re conspiring to give Trump a second term.

>How many recorded civilian self defense situations are there even where reloading was involved while there was still a threat (rather than after the threat ended)?
Quite a few, actually, even discounting ones with revolvers or mag-ban cuckmags. But still quite small as a percentage of all defensive shootings.
And some of those occasions involve multiple magazines of whatever capacity, so it's not like a 17-round mag would be all good, while a 15-round mag will get you shot while reloading -- the chance of the encounter ending exactly on round 15 or 16 is vanishingly small, in all probability you're still going to need to get to cover and reload. The choice of how many spare mags to carry is far more relevant than typical capacity differences between otherwise-comparable pistols.

Bottom line, there's an enormous difference between a two shot derringer and a 5-8 round revolver or single-stack that's fairly likely to come into play in a defensive shooting. (Which is why almost nobody considers a derringer a good choice.)
There's a pretty big difference between the revolver or single-stack and a 12-20 round double-stack, and it's not unlikely to come into play. (Most people prefer double-stacks, but for some people, issues of reliability, fit, or a steadfast belief in the power of fowtyfive outweigh the downside. Both choices can be rational, depending on the reasoning behind them.)
The capacity differences between a 15-round .357sig, a 17-round 9mm, or a 20-round 5.7? There is a difference, and there's some small chance it could come into play, but IMO it's just not worth worrying about.

>whataboutism: the post
Yeah, but
Yeah, but
Yeah, but
Must be those new Chinese hypersonic goalposts we keep hearing about.

>now actually post some of these real bodycam shoots that involve shotguns
Strawman

>shotguns not being able to reliably stop a person in one shot when using propper ammunition for the task and not birdshot
Moving the goalposts. And I overlooked

>Only videos I've seen of people getting shot with shotguns and not being out of the fight after the first shot involved birdshot.
Appeal to authority

*quantum hypersonic Chinese goalposts
Fixed that for you

>Going to the range is not a grim and horrible duty that cuts into your spare time.
No, but practicing with a gun you feel compelled to practice with due to ridiculous concerns about effectiveness will cut into the range time one could be spending shooting the guns you want to shoot that will realistically be more than adequate for any situation you may come across so long as you do your part.

>It’s about the same as the difference between driving your wife’s car as opposed to driving your car.
Yes, but why would someone be okay with just being able to present a basic level of proficiency with any piece of equipment they depend on rather than knowing the limits of a piece of equipment and being able to operate that piece of equipment close to or at its limits?

>ignore the social conditioning, and you just might find yourself having a good time at the range.
So ignore the retards going on about ridiculous scenarios that one's gun of choice needs to be adequate for and just shoot the guns you enjoy? Yeah, that's how I have a good time at the range.

An unlikely situation that involves infinite value means you should prepare for it every time.

Just watch police shooting nigs. They can take a bunch of hits and keep going, a lot of times they have to magdump

>You don't have to be "better" to recognize that training that doesn't stick
This isn't about training "not sticking". This is about you believing that training is real life. It's not. When engaged in combat, your stress levels will degrade your performance. You will do what you trained to do, but you will not be that good at it. This effect only wears off after you've been stress inoculated.
It literally doesn't matter how much you trained or how well you trained. You could go to the best boxing gym in the world, train for weeks, spar, etc but the first time you step into the ring you'll see your arms moving slower than you want, you'll see punches coming and not dodge in time. That's what happens. Then after 4 or 5 amateur fights you'll see that when you fight you're no longer stressed, your mind is clear and your body does what you ask of it.

you
youtube.com/watch?v=wh7HYceVJ0o

You need high-capacity if you are defending an isolated position and have to wait more than a few minutes for help to arrive. If you’re just defending yourself in the street capacity is not such an issue.

Mall ninjas just like to shut down any talk about anything that they dislike. It's impossible to have a conversation about anything without it "but that's worse than a high capacity 9x19". It likely takes a bit of a score on autistic spectrum to end up a mall ninja so they obsess over whatever is most optimal for what they think they need a gun for. It'd be nice if they let the grown ups talk about other things once in a while without the
>but high capacity 9
>gel test
>all bullets are the same
>10mm is best but im a female wristed wannabe fbi agent

>"Mall ninjas just like to shut down any talk about anything that they dislike"
>literally calls anyone with different opinions a mall ninja to shut them down

Okay boomer

I'm sorry your hands are too feminine for the big iron. Maybe one day when you grow up you can be a spinnyboi too.

I too insult people when I have nothing relevant to say

>practicing with a gun you feel compelled to practice with due to ridiculous concerns about effectiveness will cut into the range time one could be spending shooting the guns you want to shoot
You’re just repeating your argument. You seem to be locked into this whole gun-as-duty mindset. Most people who go to the range actually enjoy shooting whatever it is they wind up shooting.

>rather than knowing the limits of a piece of equipment and being able to operate that piece of equipment close to or at its limits?
For the same reason most drivers don’t spend hours on a track, pushing a Formula 1 car up to 200 mph. The vast majority of shooters see no need to do a bunch of Tier 1 operator shit, because they’ll never wind up in a situation where that skillset is even remotely useful. What, exactly, do you imagine the functional limits of a pistol are? You mentioned it, I want to see what you’re talking about.

Vely implessive!!! Can we see the goalposts move from space?

And your autism apparently prevents you from recognizing banter when it crawls up your leg and bites you on the ass

No! Plasma steath sheathing! Burgerfats BTFO!

Dude im closer to 40 than not and I dress nice 4 or 5 times a year max.
I work sales a button down shirt and khakis is not nice thsts daily wear. I carry a full 22+1 mag in a 92fs and 18 mag in my pocket, if im wearing something weird like tight clothes i pocket carry a p32 keltec with a 10+1 mag in my pocket.
More shots is best, im a good shot but lucky ive never been in a gun fight so I dont know how ill react aim wise....id like alot of tries

Is that a child?
If so im saddened on an otherwise happy day

It literally does not matter. The only thing that really matters in a self defense situation is that you have a gun, whether it's a .22 derringer or a fucking p90 is irrelevent. What also matters is that we have the ability to freely buy and own anything we want, regardless of ammo capacity. Anyone who considerers high ammo capacity to be useless and unnecessary is an enemy, likewise, anyone who considers low ammo capacity to be discouraged anf ostracized is also an enemy.

I'm sorry, did I offend you? Which is your preferred gender pronoun miss? MRS? Perhaps glocksexual?

Who are you suppressing for and for what purpose?
What a waste of a get.
You're a faggot.

Attached: D91RmAtX4AAUElF.jpg (1077x969, 66K)

>"I swear I didn't lose the argument, it was just bantz!"

Attached: 6480885113_de4cf88fa3.jpg (500x386, 96K)

Wow, that's scathing. Sure showed me. I better go play russian roullette alone in a dark room.

Attached: fdotik.jpg (400x526, 30K)

It's better to have more than less, but something is still better than nothing.

That said, if you're getting more bullets in a given size, you should choose that over something with less. Volume of fire wins gun fights.

If you used an autoloader instead of a revolver you'd be done sooner

Attached: images (5).jpg (225x225, 6K)

>Volume of fire wins gun fights.
That's standard battle doctrine for fighting in a group for flanking maneuvers to work. In a one on one, or one vs many conflict you can throw that shit right out the window. Capacity is only highly regarded because there is an industry supporting making one specific caliber with that tooling. That's why you get it in bulk for cheaper. It's why Russia churns out AK's to flood areas with violence. They have the tooling to make that. So they make a lot of it. Quantity vs quality. The entire argument is that you might as well keep churning out all this stuff in quantity because quality is good enough. Some of us would prefer quality concerns over quantity. You can sit around and fight it tooth and nail if you want but things are going to improve in quality either way eventually whether you like it or not, and you obviously would prefer not.

I use both, thanks. I don't have to LARP as a tier 1 mall ninja operator. I can walk around with other things and use them competently enough you'd call me a nigger and think you need your tier 1 operator skills to over come.

Attached: 309e874bd721ef4e2239f3a76edbd9f7.png (545x492, 221K)

So instead you larp as a 70's cop. Understandable.

>In a one on one, or one vs many conflict you can throw that shit right out the window
Sorry, but does that imply in a 1 vs many scenario you'd want LESS volume?
>Capacity is only highly regarded because there is an industry supporting making one specific caliber with that tooling.
>Quantity vs quality. The entire argument is that you might as well keep churning out all this stuff in quantity because quality is good enough. Some of us would prefer quality concerns over quantity.
What are you trying to say here?

>pure opinion with zero references
>repeating the same unsubstantiated uneducated self-constructed doctrine over and over again through a page of nearly 100 posts
Kill yourself, but not with a gun.

I don't LARP as a cop, I LARP as an adult and an alcoholic.
>what are you going to say here?
Well if I'm sober I'm pretty sure you're hands are too feminine to actually get them dirty so you'll need many to try any shit. Would I want less? I don't think I'm going to want more. I'm going down, and I'm not going alone. You might want a bit more though.
>Kill yourself
duly noted and thoughtfully considered
>but not with a gun
I like to keep my options open.

Attached: ukzwp53b1g131.jpg (796x768, 65K)

>multiple mentions of alcohol to look cool
Stop reading noir detective novels.
>Well if I'm sober I'm pretty sure you're hands
*your

>You seem to be locked into this whole gun-as-duty mindset
No, I reject that mindset, which is why my gun purchases are based entirely on enjoyment rather than whatever contrived idea of practicality posters on gun boards will go on about.

>For the same reason most drivers don’t spend hours on a track, pushing a Formula 1 car up to 200 mph.
Neither of those is necessay to realize the limits a vehicle has and learn to operate it near those limits.

>The vast majority of shooters see no need to do a bunch of Tier 1 operator shit
You don't need to do that LARP shit to be a good shooter. Simply focusing on shooting a gun you enjoy well and trying to improve with it will get you a lot farther when it comes to effectiveness than splitting range time between the gun that you like and the """""effective""""" gun that you selected after obsessively pouring over spec sheets to find the objective most practical gun for whatever fantasy self defense situation you could come up with at the time.

ouch, if I didn't know any better I'd think I'm so hurt I'd been hit by a 9x19. Now what am I going to tell mom when I write home
>none of the faggots think I'm cool mom boo boo hoo
>this is a real boo boo gonna kms

Attached: 1558608994696.png (500x630, 165K)