It would be great to have a compiled list of ALL the self-defense shootings from year to year - including accurate information on how many rounds were fired. That would enable us to calculate percentages and determine "optimal" (and by default, less than optimal) number of rounds to carry. But even then it would STILL depend on what type of situation one found themselves in as to whether they were sufficiently armed, and that is an *unknowable* variable.
Even in quiet, low-crime areas the possibility of a situation that requires more than 5 rounds exist. Conversely, crime ridden areas have many situations that are solved by LESS than 5 rounds. So who can say?
In my opinion what it all comes down to is that personal decision on how much risk one is willing to take on 5 rounds being enough. My hope is that we will never know if we're right or wrong.
I'm very interested in stats, but we also have to be cautious about what they do and don't cover and how they are gathered. Most are severely lacking in providing the details which are important to get a better understanding as to what's actually occuring and is probable.
In the Claude Werner study(5,000 incidents)he states..."The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared the defenders initial response was to fire until empty." So, it sounds as if firing those rounds wasn't actually necessary, but the reaction of a panicked shooter. Regardless it was in a very few number of incidents that it occurred.
Werner also says reloading occurred in 3 incidents, but mentioned "one of those involved killing an escaped lion with a .32 caliber revolver." Are the other 2 as irrelevant and ridiculous? And what are his sources?
https://tacticalprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/tac-5-year-w-tables.pdf
Another thing to keep in mind in regard to the Werner stats is that they only cover incidents where the defender was successful.
I see the potential for needing more than five rounds being there, but it is still extremely improbable, and for me, it doesn't override the advantages that the snub revolver offers in close-quarter scenarios. It's simply a trade-off and one that I think favors the revolver. What trait(s) is more important and likely to be of advantage is the pertinent question. I do own several Glocks, but they are primarily reserved for home and hotel defense where I have more lead time and can't easily escape the situation and have to make a stand. Even so, I still wouldn't really feel inadequately armed with only revolvers.
A lot has been said about how choices should differ in high crime areas, but I don't see it that way. I travel to numerous major U.S. cities every year. I head to Atlanta in a few weeks and then onto Miami. After that St.Louis, Chicago, Nashville, Louisville, Memphis, and Cincinnati. I don't think I'm all that likely to encounter different types of crime, simply a greater chance of it compared to lower risk areas. Reactive close-quarter ambushes are still the most likely threats. If I was so unlucky to be involved in an active-shooter scenario, drive-by or get in-between a gang shoot-out, I'm probably somewhere I shouldn't have been in the first place, but regardless, I'm going to get out as quickly as possible, not hang around and engage.
And I would rather carry two airweight snubs than an auto if capacity is a nagging concern, even if that concern is not substantiated.
Considering most violence(assaults, muggings, robberies, carjackings) is perpetuated(with fists, knives, guns, impact weapons)at very close distances, reliability in that environment is paramount to me and I just don't have a lot of trust semi-autos in ECQ scenarios. And it's not a training issue or something that can be overcome IMO. Mitigated yes, but there are still glaring inherent differences between revolver and autoloaders. If someone honestly believes they can hold a #2 position for any length of time against an aggressive assailant(or two) at contact distances, they aren't living in reality. Any retention or compressed shooting position is temporary and transitory to me, but that is not how most instructors are teaching it.
In the first segment of this video, the instructor lets students actively try to disarm him. I don't know him or anything about him, but kudos, because how many instructors do you see doing this? And what I see going on is pretty similar to what I've observed over the years running ECQ force-on-force drills.
[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mdjUy1dHBAI[/ame]
