Thursday, February 4, 2010

Meditations on Ammunition Capacity...

One of those posts, a comment on capacity. In this month's Blue Press author Serena Wood wrote an article titled, "Make mine a High Capacity Nine". I read it with some interest and thought it worth commenting on, ammunition capacity that is. There are many schools of thought, most seem to feel that if you can't "solve it in x" number of rounds, then it can't be solved. My thought is that this is always a defeatist attitude, because there is ALWAYS a possibility that you could be attacked by that "x" number of attackers or more. And my question is, why give up? You can solve the problem, you just have to work harder at it. None the less, the statisticians will drag the numbers out, the largest percentage of handgun carriers who have to draw their pistol in defense, will most likely not use it. Those that do, will likely fire less than 5 rounds. A smaller percentage will fire over five rounds. An even smaller percentage will fire more than 5 rounds and be attacked by more than two attackers. If the percentages are so small, why even carry a gun that holds more than 1 or 2 or 3 rounds?

In fact, there was a time, where mode of the day was to carry a single shot pistol, but soon after the introduction of the pistol, came the idea of a brace of pistols, and then a suite of pistols. So, in the day of duels and exploration, the common mode of carry was to carry at least three guns. In fact when I was at the Texas Ranger Museum, I noted that when the Rangers were founded, a Ranger had to provide a rifle, a brace of pistols, and his own ammunition. So, we know from the beginning of carrying a firearm for personal defense and offense, the preference has been to multiple shots.

And, let's be honest the first true innovation in handgun history from Sam Colt was that the gun could fire 5 rounds reliably, before being used as a club, not just one or two. Once the 5 and later 6 shot pistols were created, then came the habit of carrying two of them for a total of 12 rounds before needing to reload. Then came the real innovations in handgun history. Schofield created the easier to break open and reload Smith and Wesson No. 3 Schofield (Calvary) model. Then Webley & Scott made their MK. series of revolvers, which shortly after their adoption, an enterprising man created the Prideaux Device, to facilitate even faster reloading. In 1893 Hugo Borchardt invented the first successful semi-automatic handgun, and a more important idea, the detachable box magazine. All of these innovations where in the name of MORE ammunition and FASTER reloads.

What's the point I'm getting at? Ammunition capacity is an important factor in purchasing a firearm. But unlike Ms. Wood, who made it one of her main criteria in choosing a firearm, I feel that capacity is secondary to fit, reliability, and the ability to shoot the gun well. That's an important distinction, a handgun needs to FIT in order for you to shoot it well. The short nature of the handgun means that it requires more work to shoot well over a rifle or shotgun; it means that gun fit is more critical than anything else. This means, that I recommend that one pick a firearm that fits, over one that holds more rounds.

The continued evolution of magazine capacity is something to consider when purchasing a gun, but the reality is we haven't found a better way to reload guns in over a hundred years. We are still using versions of the detachable box magazine and the Prideaux device, in our big square box magazines and our HKS or Safariland speed loaders. These devices work quite well and with practice sub-second reloads are possible. With the ability to carry spare ammunition (especially handgun magazines, and especially single stack ones, because they are thin and imminently concealable), one can be less concerned with capacity and more focused on fit.

So, to sound like a broken record I will say again, when it comes to a capacity/caliber/handgun size argument the answer is simple. Pick the gun that FITS, the one that fits your hand, your body, and your purpose.

-Rob

No comments:

Post a Comment