>>11015309I think there's two schools of (non-shill, non-pajeet) thought when it comes to estimated needs of ammunition in actual confrontation:
a.) Iraqi urban warfare (prolonged, extended firefights spanning - in some cases - 3-4 hours of active engagement)
b.) American self-defense stats (short, less than a second confrontation with 3-5 rounds and likely no back and forth exchange of gunfire)
Both are reasonable assumptions to make however (a.) is impractical for the average civilian even in an urban civil war-style confrontation scenario. First, there are no medevacs in any likely American civil war. In fact, chances are pretty fucking high that if Joe "Adolf" Smith is exchanging rounds with commies, he's probably going to also be exchanging rounds with LE and perhaps even NG/DHS. In both those likely outcomes, infantry tactics becomes moot.
Thus (c.) needs to be the main practical solution to these scenario-driven problems.
(c.) Only engage targets in ambush and with clear egress route.
This minimizes the amount of ammo you need to carry on you (~180 rounds) and reduces the amount of weight you have to carry. By all means, stash another 150 rounds in a cache but it's unrealistic to expect your average civilian (even with some military experience) to load out 600 rounds worth of magazines and expect to survive toe-to-toe with security forces and commie hoards.
Also, mag dumping is terrible. It's not an effective suppressive fire method from a semi-automatic rifle and it just reduces the amount of ammo you have on hand to actually defend yourself as you are attempting to leave the area.
