View Single Post
 
Old 06-16-2018, 09:43 AM
Mainsail's Avatar
Mainsail Mainsail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: On someone's last nerve..
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 936
Liked 2,519 Times in 794 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hostler View Post
I'm talking about "defensive reliability" where you may be firing off handed with a poor grip, the gun pushed against an assailant, rolling around in the dirt with a grabby bad guy punching you, etc.
Do you see this scenario as being the most likely situation in which you would need to defend yourself with deadly force? If so, then you are right in your thinking.

Not all of us see it that way. I do see it that way when I'm out running in my residential neighborhood, but not for day-to-day carry.

This incident just occurred at a grocery store. SHORT VERSION: Couple in a grocery store, three malcontents follow them outside. The trio then followed the couple out of the store into the parking lot, where there was an exchange of "a large amount of gunfire."

I see this sort of defensive situation as far more likely than what you describe above. The self-defense events I read about in various sources support that belief as well. I would not want to be in that situation with a five or six shot revolver, even with a speed-loader or two as spares. Nine shots from my 1911 and one or two spare 8-round mags would make me a lot more comfortable, as would 14 rounds of .357 with another 12 in a spare magazine.

Being equipped is a critical step in self-defense, but I think you would agree that it is impossible to be equipped for every scenario. Thus it is foolish to be better equipped for a less likely scenario at the expense of one more likely. Now, if you genuinely believe that grappling with robbers is more likely than defense from a few feet out or more, then you are wise to pattern your equipment for that scenario. For me, where I live, and the types of crime that occur, a snubby would be foolish.
Reply With Quote