Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I will note that the "need" for ammo capacity is directly related to two things:
1) are you a person that has to stay in the fight to apprehend someone? (law enforcement). If you are not, then you only need a few well-placed shots to stop the immediate threat, or perhaps run for defensive cover until LE arrives.
2) are you a decent shot, meaning you'll not have a lot of misplaced rounds? Most folks miss, frequently, when the manure meets the mechanical blades. If you practice in high-stress situations, that can reduce your "need" for more rounds.
The 26 has 10+1 capacity; that's plenty for a typical civilian encounter, which has a very low average shots-fired count. Interestingly we don't hear of guys carrying a 5-shot J-frame whining about their limited capacity, but for some reason it is always a topic with pistol guys, who can never seem to get enough. And as I said, you can carry more if you think you need more ...
The 26 is more than accurate enough, despite it's shorter bbl. I qualify with my 26 on the very same course as I do my 19, every year. I shoot just as well with the small one as the mid-size. Really does not matter; my point is that the 26 is plenty accurate, so size is not an issue when it comes to accuracy. It may be a matter of YOUR SKILL with a smaller gun, but the gun itself is plenty accuract for the task.
I recommend the 26 for overall use. It fills the most roles with the least intrusion, and genearlly has no downside because you can always put a longer mag in it, and it's more accurate than you are.
Dnewton3 - I respect your opinion and your experience. But I think that your assessment of the "need" in "civilian" encounters is predicated on a narrow set of assumption. The number of rounds fired in a typical encounter with LE is much higher precisely because LE carry high-cap duty weapons. They have more rounds available. As an example, in this shooting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting - the NYPD officers in the incident (ostensibly trained, with reasonably accuracy, right?) fired 16 rounds to bring down one threatening suspect. They hit 9 bystanders.
This is a common result in LE force on force encounters: multiple officers firing multiple rounds. Literally dozens of rounds downrange against a suspect. It wasn't that way when the S&W Model 66 was the standard, but since the Glock revolution in the 80s, the number of rounds in a typical encounter has gone way up.
So, presuming that a "civilian" needs fewer rounds because they don't need to stay in the fight just doesn't make sense to me. The fight came to the civilian/CCW...so, they may, or may not, have the choice in withdrawing. They may face more than one threat. Fewer shots fired is not a way to validate the nature of the potential encounter.
If two trained LEOs need 16 rounds to take down one suspect, then why would a lone CCW need fewer rounds vs. one suspect? Is the CCW a more accurate shot? Better trained? Using better ammo? Facing a lesser threat?
The 19 that you carry holds 15+1. Seems a reasonable amount, but I would always have an extra mag. Were I to buy a CCW weapon (full disclosure, my duty weapon is an H&K USP Compact in .40, 12+1 and I carry 2 spare mags, 37 rounds total) that was only carrying 10 rounds, I would have at least an extra mag.
Further, "high stress" training isn't available to everyone. It should be. And judgement shooting (which takes a sophisticated visual set-up, which = $$$, in which a scenario plays out in front of you and you have to chose when/where/if you shoot) is perhaps the best next phase after marksmanship. I am fortunate to have that training, but it's simply not available. So, is it reasonable to assume that our CCW is going to respond as well as someone, like you, or another trained professional, that has that high stress training?
