Um…I doubt you are going to get many cites that aren’t politically skewed. It’s not a question that, IMHO, can be answered definitively in this way, since it’s going to come down to multiple factors and opinions and speculation.
This is a quick google search, but you can probably find similar ones by doing your own search. But according to this, the US has fired 250,000 rounds of ammo for every insurgent killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve actually seen higher numbers during WWII and other conflicts…sometimes in the millions of rounds fired per enemy killed.
Ok, sure, we aren’t talking combat here but self defense, but consider that even if we were talking 20 shots fired to attacker killed (which is an astronomically better ratio than the one cited above) that this would put it in the range of needing your weapon to be able to fire that many without reloading.
Of course, the actual reason people ‘need’ this is that loading magazines is kind of a pain in the ass, and if you enjoy shooting at the range it’s nice to be able to shoot more and reload less. When I was shooting a lot I’d go through a couple hundred rounds at the range every week. If I have 30 round clips (or 16-17) that’s a lot more shooting and a lot less reloading than if I had 10 round clips (or 6-8). Simple as that.
As for how much safer you or anyone else would be if we limited everyone to lower capacity magazines, well, the thing is, once the clips are filled changing them out takes about 2 seconds. Literally it’s push a button, slam in a new clip and charge the weapon and it’s ready to go. Someone on a shooting spree is probably not going to be reloading his mags every time he burns through a clip, so you aren’t going to be measurably safer if the clips only hold 10 instead of 30, or 6 instead of 16. It’s not going to make any difference and it’s really a stupid idea from people who think it’s scary to have 30 rounds in a mag instead of 10 because they don’t realize there isn’t much difference in these mass shooting rampages but that it is a big pain in the ass to all the millions of folks who like to shoot regularly and aren’t planning to go postal.
The differences between which you seem wise enough to understand but still intent on brushing aside.
Combat - even limited-scale urban combat - and home defense, or any firearms need a homeowner is ever likely to need, even in the most unlikely circumstances are barely on the same spectrum. Trying to justify homeowner weapons with military/SWAT/combat needs and tactics is just self-serving nonsense.
[QUOTE=Amateur Barbarian]
The differences between which you seem wise enough to understand but still intent on brushing aside.
[/QUOTE]
Because it’s still relevant. The point being that if you are firing your gun at someone for real, it’s going to be a highly stressful action and you are going to miss a lot. I conceded that it’s not going to be the same as warfare type combat, but the same principal is going to be in effect, namely that you can’t expect anyone, especially civilians to be able to hit what they are shooting at very often when they are stressed, since folks who ARE trained don’t tend to hit what THEY are shooting at very much either.
And I think handwaving the whole thing away is the same. Probably why this shouldn’t be in GQ but instead in GD. And it’s not on the same spectrum…I’m conceding that it’s 5 fucking orders of magnitude different. But the same factors that make soldiers, trained in combat miss are going to impact joe sixpack trying to fend off some scruffy breaking into his house.
Comparing military use is not informative - nothing can be determined about the key factors - hit ratio, stopping power, and number of assailants. None of those are comparable.
He asked if cites were available for a very specific question. My answer fully responded to that particular question.
The point you raise, however, is slightly to the left of the main purpose of the OP, and is exactly what I mentioned in my post. A second hand recounting is roughly the same as the description of a hypothetical.
Also, did you follow the link I included? The article in that thread pointed out some facts that would indicate a very sound basis for returning police to a 6 round revolver…
The police are thinking along the same lines that cause any other person to choose a high round magazine…not cites (because there aren’t any) but “feelings”. They “feel” safer, or more in power, and that state of mind probably has more to do with their effectiveness in a self defense scenario that any particular weapon might.
That level of comparison is true - but also uninformative. Both will be stressed which affects hit ratio - granted. The magnitude of that effect is unknown. Military are also often firing suppressive fire making any comparison of hit ratio not useful. Military are using FMJ whereas for defense we’re usually talking JHP.
In any event I think we’re on the same page - but there is better information available that isn’t based on military comparisons.
Some time ago, I think it was in Bill Jordan’s “No Second Place Winners”, I read that most IRL pistol gunfights take place at 7 1/2 yards. In a self-defense one on one situation, unless someone’s got some cover, I doubt you’ll have opportunity to shoot more than 4 rounds regardless of the outcome.
A civilian will miss his target far more than he will hit it. Firepower is also needed to hold the attackers down even if you can’t hit them. More firepower definitely increases your options in a firefight.
How is analysis of actual events that quantify shots fired, people killed, shots missed, etc. second hand? What would be first hand?
No. Feel free to point out a relevant section.
There have been several incidents where police are outgunned. Being sufficiently armed with ammo and capacity does make them safer. Are you really asserting that having 6 rounds is safer than having 17?
The same thing happened with the 30 round magazines for M-16s during the Vietnam era. The word was up to 27 rounds, you were good; any more and you were borrowing trouble. I think it had something to do with a poorly designed or engineered spring.
Disagree. If you short stroke your pump shotgun, you are potentially fucked.
A modern semiautomatic pistol or a modern double action revolver when loaded with quality, modern ammunition, will go bang almost every single time the trigger is pulled. This will not require any special manipulation to do this. Just pull the trigger.
Shotguns are recommended frequently as a home defense weapon, but they are not as reliable in amateur, panicked hands as a semiautomatic pistol or double action revolver.
On topic, the shotgun holds anywhere from 3 to 7 or so 2.75" shells in its magazine tube. Reload times are much slower and require dexterity and focus much greater than replacing a magazine or using a speed loader in a wheel gun.
I sense the sarcasm in your reply. My cite was for one man in the open vs over 100 shooting at him. He had a weapon with 6 rounds. For those who didn’t bother to read I give you this:
*York worked his way into position to silence the German machine guns. York recalled:[18]
And those machine guns were spitting fire and cutting down the undergrowth all around me something awful. And the Germans were yelling orders. You never heard such a racket in all of your life. I didn't have time to dodge behind a tree or dive into the brush... As soon as the machine guns opened fire on me, I began to exchange shots with them. There were over thirty of them in continuous action, and all I could do was touch the Germans off just as fast as I could. I was sharp shooting... All the time I kept yelling at them to come down. I didn't want to kill any more than I had to. But it was they or I. And I was giving them the best I had.
During the assault, six German soldiers in a trench near York charged him with fixed bayonets. York had fired all the rounds in his M1917 Enfield rifle,[19] but drew his .45 Colt automatic pistol[20] and shot all six soldiers before they could reach him*
When was the last time you had 6 guys in your home charging at you with bayoneted rifles? This is an example of a guy with a handgun with a 16 shot clip taking out six guys in close proximity with drawn weapons. I’m pretty sure your home invasion is going be less stressful than this so why would you need 30 rounds? The only people who invade a home in this manner are cops and if you need a 30 round clip because you fear the cops then there is no cite that anyone can give you to convince you otherwise.
But least you think I am anti-gun or anti-large capacity magazine I do think there may be a place for civilians to have large magazine capacity and it’s not for home invasion. It’s for feral hog hunting. I’ve talked to a few of my hunter buddies and they tell me that those things can be downright nasty and very hard to take down in thick brush. I wouldn’t want to be in a ravine facing down a wounded 400 pound hog without extra ammo at the ready.
OP asked for cites. You are describing a cite. Independently verified, factual, etc. A second hand recounting of events as parlayed onto an internet message board via the possibly biased keystrokes of a poster such as yourself, or myself, would not qualify as a cite.
That’s what I was referring to. It’s not a definitive statement, but since I said “pointed out some facts that would indicate a very sound basis for returning police to a 6 round revolver”, I was phrasing things in a way to indicate MORE conversation regarding the type of weapons police use would be good. Not less conversation. It’s just facts, information, not accusations, or silly anti-gun decrees.
Several incidents of police being outgunned? Do you think we could quantify the incidents of police using disproportionate force or having bad aim as merely “several”? Or do you think instead that a cursory google search might yield many more?
Did you miss the NY Times article that detailed results of 11 years worth of annual New York Police Department firearms-discharge reports? I quoted from it extensively.
I fail to see how this supports your claim that there is sound basis to return to a 6 round revolver. There’s a leap in logic there. In any event, 7 hits out of 16 rounds fired - that’s better than I’d expect. Considering it usually takes more than 3 rounds hit to stop a threat I’d say this is argument in favor of higher mag capacity.
The only reason to limit magazine capacity after you’ve decided that a single round is okay, is if you believe the person firing will do more damage with each subsequent shot.
Well, ok, maybe that particular article didn’t do my claim justice. I can’t fathom a police squad wielding revolvers unloading over 100 rounds as occurred in the article in my recent post above. Can you? In most incidences (from your linked article) the police shot fewer than 4 times per shooting. How would a 6 shot revolver not suffice? There’s nothing wrong with having a higher capacity firearm in the cruiser, as most cops have now. But the reflexive “Oh shit” magazine unloading that seems to happen when groups of officers all start firing on an individual would result in far fewer overall shots fired, don’t you agree?
Which makes him even more of a bad ass. So he kilt 22 of them with his 6 shot rifle, ran out ammo for it and then got close and personal with this 7 shot M1911 45. And then took 132 prisoners just because they were awestruck.
And why would a home invasion be anymore difficult than this and require 30 round clips? In a home invasion if you shot the 1st one the other five would run like the pussies home invasions types really are. People who do home invasions are not mastermind bad ass MF’s, they are counting on the element of surprise and if you meet them with a weapon they will more than likely run unless you are defending your meth lab from meth addicts.
So he kilt 22 of them with his 6 shot rifle, ran out ammo for it and then got close and personal with this 7 shot M1911 45. 
And then took 132 prisoners just because they were awestruck.