[JohnKSa]

This is a compilation of a couple of posts made on another forum. The content may be thought-provoking to some.

Something I read recently started me thinking about the probability of making a certain number of hits within a certain number of shots given a fixed probability of hitting the target with any given shot. I set up a spreadsheet to do the calculations and thought some of the results might be interesting to other shooters.

To present the data in some sort of reasonable fashion, I've assumed that an assailant will require 2 or more HITS from a handgun to be neutralized/incapacitated. It's fairly common to assume that it will take more than one hit to neutralize an assailant and since double-tapping is ubiquitous, I figured 2 was a reasonable starting assumption.

I've assumed a hit rate probability of 30% for the listings below since that is an often quoted figure for the hit rate probability of law enforcement officers involved in gunfights.

For a single assailant and a 30% hit rate probability.
# of Shots : Probability of achieving 2 or more hits.
5 : 47.2%
6 : 58%
7 : 67.1%
8 : 74.5%
9 : 80.4%
10: 85.1%
11: 88.7%
12: 91.5%

For two assailants and a 30% hit rate probability.
# of Shots : Probability of 4 or more hits (i.e. 2 on each assailant).
5 : 3.1%
6 : 7.1%
7 : 12.6%
8 : 19.4%
9 : 27%
10: 35%
11: 43%
12: 50.8%

There are some other assumptions inherent in trying to apply these probabilities practically. For one thing, the two assailant case assumes that the defender is able to tell how many hits have been made on the first assailant and then immediately switch to shooting at the second assailant after making 2 hits on the first--wasting no additional shots on an already neutralized opponent.

Both cases assume that the defender is able to empty his/her weapon in the course of the gunfight--he/she is not incapacitated before that can take place. Basically, these are sort of "best case" scenarios. The point is to get a rough idea of the best that a gunfight could turn out if you need 2 hits per assailant and you have a given number of shots to pull it off.

I was surprised at how tough it was to neutralize 2 assailants given a 30% hit rate and 5 shots. Basically one can expect to fail 97 times out of 100 attempts.

To improve those odds to EVEN odds (roughly a 50/50 chance of success) when using a 5 shot handgun, one would need to shoot well enough to achieve a 69% hit rate during a gunfight. That would give a person with a 5 shot handgun a 50.1% chance of succeeding against two opponents who each require 2 or more hits to be neutralized.

From a practical standpoint, the probabilities involved suggest that someone armed with a typical small carry pistol (11 rounds or less) and achieving a hit rate of about 30% per shot has better than even odds of failing to neutralize 2 determined opponents before their gun is emptied. Under the same conditions, someone armed with a true pocket pistol (7 rounds or less) is likely to fail to neutralize 2 determined assailants about 90% of the time or more.

Even with only a single assailant, a pocket pistol will run dry somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the time before a 30% hit rate achieves 2 hits.

Lance Thomas realized after winning his first gunfight with a 5 shot pistol that he had expended 3 of his 5 rounds neutralizing one opponent--fortunately the other one ran. The realization caused him to change his tactics to include multiple guns in his defense plan, hidden behind the counter in various locations around his gun shop. That's one fairly practical response.

However, I'm not really suggesting we all need to carry multiple guns or upgrade to high-capacity carry guns. The major "takeaway" from the calculations is to understand the limitations of the weapon system that is the combination of you and your carry gun.

Taking on 2 determined attackers with a typical compact pistol is a pretty grim mission, if you look at the numbers. If one or both assailants don't cut and run when the lead starts flying, the odds are slim to none of success. If success (survival) is the goal, it might be wise to consider other options. Drawing and shooting it out isn't going to be a wise course of action unless you're sure they'll give up easily or unless there is no other reasonable course of action available.

Someone will probably point out that real-world results seem to contradict the calculated probabilities. The reason for that is that defenders with low-capacity handguns who prevail against multiple attackers are NOT doing so by shooting all their attackers to the ground by making multiple solid hits on each one.

Clearly, what's happening is that one or more of the attackers is chosing to run rather than stand and fight. The Lance Thomas incident is a perfect example. Mr. Thomas, armed with a 5 shot handgun, prevailed against two attackers--but not because he skillfully applied 2 solid hits each before running out of ammunition. He won because the second attacker ran when the shooting started.

So, does that mean that capacity is meaningless? Not at all. It was simply the luck of the draw that the second man ran. Had he stood and fought like his accomplice, Mr. Thomas would likely have not prevailed given that it took him 3 shots to neutralize his first opponent, leaving him only 2 to deal with the second.

Clearly there needs to be a balance. Moving up in capacity obviously improves your odds, but you can't get carried away in that direction because it's not terribly likely that you'll be able to take advantage of a huge round count in the few seconds a gunfight typically lasts.

Improving the hit rate probability (sharpening shooting skills) clearly helps, but only if you have the capacity available to take advantage of it. For example, even a very impressive 70% hit rate only gives you a 53% chance of scoring 2 or more hits on each of 2 opponents if you're armed with a 5 shot handgun. On the other hand, if you can achieve just a 50% hit rate with a 9 shot handgun, your odds of succeeding in making the 4 hits are 75%.

As with many things, it's a tradeoff--a balance needs to be found.

These calculations don't tell the whole story. They only provide limited insight into certain aspects of a gunfight. That insight needs to be combined with other information before the big picture can start to take shape. But without this insight, a person can have a very mistaken impression about their chances against more than one determined attacker.

Here are some plots that lay things out in a reasonably easy format.

In this plot, each line traces out the probability of success with a given hit rate. So if you take the bottom line (10% hit rate) and trace across to where the bottom axis label reads 9 (# of shots), the height of the line will give you the probability of making 4 hits with 9 shots if your hit rate is 10%. It's a very small number...
http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=82250&stc=1&d=1340946276
In the plot below, each line traces out the probability of success with a given number of shots. So, if you take the bottom line (5 shot line) and trace across to where the bottom axis label (hit rate) reads 50%, the height of the line (about 20%) tells the probability of making 4 hits with 5 shots and a hit rate of 50%.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=82251&stc=1&d=1340946276

[Kleanbore]

That's a real eye opener. One can vary the assumptions however one pleases, but the probability of success is undoubtedly a lot lower than many people may have assumed. Excellent contribution.

[trickyasafox]

interesting post- wish I could have seen the graphs, but they didn't load for me in any of my browsers.

[coalman]

The natural tendency is to focus on the most immediate threat. That will/may change with circumstances and the actions of all parties. Basically, all unknowns. Much action will be reactive for most. Point shooting likely at best. It will be a general melee. Taking on 3+ active, armed, advancing aggressors in CQB will very likely be a losing battle. Two on target would be great. One can do the job. The idea it will be a cool, controlled Tom Cruise Collateral moment is a pipe dream IMO. Regardless, the belief that 500 rounds a year on paper will get you there is part of the same dream. But, we all like to dream and the smaller caliber, higher capacity camp loves this type of data/stuff. Practice helps us all. Few in either camp put as much thought into all this. Thanks for sharing.

[Lawdawg45]

"You can't get us all.......That's a fact, but you're first and he's second, do you care what happens after that?" Tom Selleck.....Last stand at Saber River:D

LD

[JohnKSa]

The idea it will be a cool, controlled Tom Cruise Collateral moment is a pipe dream IMO.If you watch the scene in slow motion, it's clear that the second gunman has to bobble his draw to give Cruise's character time enough to make the scene work.You can't get us all......Right, I guess I had assumed all along that going up against 3 or 4 determined opponents was essentially suicide. I will admit I was pretty surprised to see how bad the odds were against just 2 determined opponents with a typical concealed carry gun and a typical LE gunfight hit rate.

If you'd told me a month ago that a person who was capable of a 30% hit rate in a gunfight and was armed with a 5 shot handgun would only be able to score 2 hits on each of 2 opponents 3% of the time before the handgun ran dry, I'd have been very skeptical.

Basically the probabilities show that if one or both of the attackers don't cut and run when the gun makes its appearance, the defender with a 5-6 shot handgun is in serious trouble unless he's able to achieve a gunfight hit rate probability that borders on superhuman. To have a one in 10 chance of success (success = making 2 hits on each of 2 attackers) with a 5 shot handgun, one would need to have a hit rate of almost 90% for each shot and for a 6 shot handgun, a hit probability of 80% would be required.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by coalman: Two on target would be great. One can do the job.One might do the job--if it just happens to hit something vital.

Consider this: if someone with an edged weapon is charging at close range at something like three yards per second, one has to ask who in his right mind would fire one shot--or two--and wait to assess the impact. I would be more inclined to fire three or four as rapidly as possible.

Yes, that of the assumptions is to stop firing after a second hit--but if it doesn't work out that way, more rounds will be needed.

The number of hits necessary to effectively stop an attacker quickly enough to save the day is an unknown; two were selected here for purposes of illustration. There is absolutely no guarantee that two will suffice.

But, we all like to dream and the smaller caliber, higher capacity camp loves this type of data/stuff.I, for one, do not like to dream about this kind of thing.

I should think that these calculations--which do not constitute data at all, but which show something about probabilities given several quite plausible assumptions--would cause some among those who are not in "the maller caliber, higher capacity camp" to question their preconceived notions.

They sure cause me to better realize the limitations of the J-Frame that I often carry.

[Lawdawg45]

If you watch the scene in slow motion, it's clear that the second gunman has to bobble his draw to give Cruise's character time enough to make the scene work.Right, I guess I had assumed all along that going up against 3 or 4 determined opponents was essentially suicide. I will admit I was pretty surprised to see how bad the odds were against just 2 determined opponents with a typical concealed carry gun and a typical LE gunfight hit rate.

If you'd told me a month ago that a person who was capable of a 30% hit rate in a gunfight and was armed with a 5 shot handgun would only be able to score 2 hits on each of 2 opponents 3% of the time before the handgun ran dry, I'd have been very skeptical.

Basically the probabilities show that if one or both of the attackers don't cut and run when the gun makes its appearance, the defender with a 5-6 shot handgun is in serious trouble unless he's able to achieve a gunfight hit rate probability that borders on superhuman. To have a one in 10 chance of success (success = making 2 hits on each of 2 attackers) with a 5 shot handgun, one would need to have a hit rate of almost 90% for each shot and for a 6 shot handgun, a hit probability of 80% would be required.

Half of my career was in the wheel gun era, and the other in Glockamerica, and I can honestly say that our wheel gun training also stressed the importance of cover and speed reloads. Statistically, after the first shot or two multiple aggressors will scatter and usually run, but in the event they don't, finding immediate cover is the key to survival.

[buck460XVR]

Taking on 2 determined attackers with a typical compact pistol is a pretty grim mission, if you look at the numbers. If one or both assailants don't cut and run when the lead starts flying, the odds are slim to none of success. If success (survival) is the goal, it might be wise to consider other options. Drawing and shooting it out isn't going to be a wise course of action unless you're sure they'll give up easily or unless there is no other reasonable course of action available.

Anyone with even a slight grasp on reality and any knowledge at all of their own skills and limitations should already know this. Those that don't, probably won't believe it anyway. One must realize tho, for a civilian, that the odds of ever using your gun for SD is miniscule. The odds of ever facing "2 determined attackers" with the intent to either kill you or die is even less. Folks that continuously hang out in areas with high crime, put themselves at risk by hangin' with the wrong folks or allow themselves to be sucked into compromising situations are the exception.

While it's cool to sit and dream about theoretical scenarios where we pop multiple assailants in the head while saving the damsel in distress, it's just that.....a dream. Truth is the majority of us, regardless of weapon would have the same chance of a snowball in damnation against well armed determined multiple assailants. All we can hope for is to take one or two with us and give our loved ones a chance to escape.

[SaxonPig]

I'm sorry, but I didn't read the entire original post because it was way too long and complicated. Let me make a couple of observations.

1. There is absolutely no way to accurately predict what the reaction of any particular individual will be to a gunshot wound. If you research gunfights this is something that jumps out at you. Big, strong men have been felled and incapacitated by a minor wound to the arm while slightly build individuals have absorbed numerous hits from large caliber weapons with no apparent immediate effect. Trying to speculate how many rounds will be needed to "stop" an attacker is a useless exercise. Too many variable including drug use which skews any attempt at scientific predictions.

2. Civilians coming under gang attack are very rare. Average citizens very rarely need to worry about engaging multiple opponents. The typical criminal attack will involve a single perpetrator, maybe two. Not that multiple person attacks never happen, but they are few and far between.

When a gang does attack, they are cowards. If they were courageous they wouldn't feel the need to operate as a group. I suspect that in 99.9% of such cases a single gunshot, Hell, simply displaying a weapon will scatter the attackers. The only way you will shoot more than one or two gang members is if you can hit them in the back as they run (which is a bad idea from a legal standpoint).

[Lawdawg45]

I'm sorry, but I didn't read the entire original post because it was way too long and complicated. Let me make a couple of observations.

1. There is absolutely no way to accurately predict what the reaction of any particular individual will be to a gunshot wound. If you research gunfights this is something that jumps out at you. Big, strong men have been felled and incapacitated by a minor wound to the arm while slightly build individuals have absorbed numerous hits from large caliber weapons with no apparent immediate effect. Trying to speculate how many rounds will be needed to "stop" an attacker is a useless exercise. Too many variable including drug use which skews any attempt at scientific predictions.

2. Civilians coming under gang attack are very rare. Average citizens very t=rarely need to worry about engaging multiple opponents. The typical criminal attack will involve a single perpetrator, maybe two. Not that multiple person attacks never happen, but they are few and far between.

When a gang does attack, they are cowards. If they were courageous they wouldn't feel the need to operate as a group. I suspect that in 99.9% of such cases a single gunshot, Hell, simply displaying a weapon will scatter the attackers. The only way you will shoot more than one or two gang members is if you can hit them in the back as they run (which is a bad idea from a legal standpoint).

My professional observation here locally differs a bit. Indianapolis has seen a huge increase in home invasions involving multiple armed suspects, and the theory of "not hanging around bad parts of town" doesn't float since criminals would rather invade a $500,000 house than a run down ghetto shack.;)

LD

[CDW4ME]

I've always felt more comfortable with the 9 or 10 + 1 round capacity of a subcompact Glock (versus anything with less) and this speculative data supports my preference.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by buck460XVR: Truth is the majority of us, regardless of weapon would have the same chance of a snowball in damnation against well armed determined multiple assailants. All we can hope for is to take one or two with us and give our loved ones a chance to escape.Since attacks involving multiple assailants are probably as common as those involving only one, I am not willing to resign myself to defeat before trying.

Posted by SaxonPig: There is absolutely no way to accurately predict what the reaction of any particular individual will be to a gunshot wound. If you research gunfights this is something that jumps out at you. Big, strong men have been felled and incapacitated by a minor wound to the arm while slightly build individuals have absorbed numerous hits from large caliber weapons with no apparent immediate effect. Trying to speculate how many rounds will be needed to "stop" an attacker is a useless exercise. Too many variable including drug use which skews any attempt at scientific predictions.Absolutely true.

The typical criminal attack will involve a single perpetrator, maybe two. Not that multiple person attacks never happen, but they are few and far between. Of the sixty three actual incidents summarized here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8121799&postcount=1), forty seven--75%--involved two or more "bad guys".

That's a small data sample, to be sure, but it should lead one to consider preparing for more than one possible attacker.

When a gang does attack, they are cowards.... I suspect that in 99.9% of such cases a single gunshot, Hell, simply displaying a weapon will scatter the attackers. The only way you will shoot more than one or two gang members is if you can hit them in the back as they run....That's another thing that cannot be predicted.

In an incident in which a couple of robbers try to take something for the sake of its monetary value, a second perp will likely run after the shooting starts, if he can safely do so, to rob again some other day.

If he cannot, all bets are off.

If quickly obtaining a car different from the one they have been driving, or a car with a higher supply of gasoline, or a car that is still able to be driven, is essential to the continued travel and to the escape of the perps(perps of that kind are very common along the highways that go through our area), it would seem very imprudent to count on anyone taking off after the shooting starts.

[Billy Shears]

I'm a cop as well, and mob assaults are pretty rare, at least where I work. (Though there is a recent example, wherein two Virginian Pilot reporters were assaulted by a juvenile gang -- Bill O'Reilly even covered it, since the regular news media, even the reporters' own paper neglected to do so).

From my own experience, I am convinced that the vast majority of these mobs will scatter like cockroaches when the lights are turned on once their members start taking gunfire. They behave just like every other set of predators in nature: they look for easy prey, and avoid situations where they could get hurt. When they attack in numbers, they are emboldened by the expectation that their victim couldn't effectively fight back against so many, and none of them will be seriously hurt. Let the victim have a gun, and start shooting back, however, and suddenly the instinct for self-preservation will take absolute precedence. A mob would have to be extremely determined to keep pressing an attack on a victim who has just shot one or more of its members, and appears willing and able to keep shooting. No one in that mob would be making the rational calculation "he can't get us all;" the fear of being one of the ones he does get, and the unwillingness to be one of those, would prevent this.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen that a mob would keep on attacking. I suppose under the right set of circumstances anything is possible. But it would really be an outlier. Most mobs just don't display that kind of determination, cohesion, and discipline.

[Kleanbore]

Mob attacks are beyond the range of John's illustrative calculations, and it doesn't take a statistician to conclude that handgun defense would be futile unless all but a couple of them were to run off.

Possible attacks by one or two assailants are much more relevant to most of us.

[buck460XVR]

Since attacks involving multiple assailants are probably as common as those involving only one, I am not willing to resign myself to defeat before trying.


Didn't mean to sound like I was tellin' folks to resign to defeat before trying. I certainly am not gonna give up without a fight either. But one must be realistic. If two armed assailants have their guns pointed at you or your loved ones, you will be lucky to get one shot off, much less pull your weapon. Rambo lives only in the movies. Is one better prepared for a attack by multiple assailants if they carry 2 high capacity guns and two mags for each? Sure. But one would also be better prepared against getting struck by lightning by never going outside. Which one do you think affects more average citizens? I always tell folks when it comes to SD, don't do what I do, do what makes you comfortable and what you have the most confidence in. But I myself don't need scientific studies with graphs and charts to tell me I'm in a crapload of trouble if attacked by a squadron of well armed ninjas.:rolleyes:

As far as the rise of multiple attackers in home invasions, I assume the majority of them are not professional hitmen, coming to do in the owner and his wife. They are there to rob and will avoid a confrontation. Yes, some are there to rape and torture, but even then, they are looking for easy prey. In most cases the availability to hide, along with the owners access to multiple guns and larger quantities of ammo if prepared, makes this a totally different scenario. Add a dog and an alarm system(most $500,000 homes have both) and the playing field is evened out.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by buck460XVR: If two armed assailants have their guns pointed at you or your loved ones, you will be lucky to get one shot off, much less pull your weapon.Yes, that is a little late to start reacting.

As a matter of fact, one assailant with an edged weapon (and he will not wave around in advance or sound a buzzer for you to draw) would pose a really serious threat.

But one would also be better prepared against getting struck by lightning by never going outside. Which one do you think affects more average citizens?I'm not sure what it has to do with the number of rounds one should carry, but the lifetime risk of being victimized by violent crime is more than one thousand times that of the lifetime risk of being struck by lightning.

But I myself don't need scientific studies with graphs and charts to tell me I'm in a crapload of trouble if attacked by a squadron of well armed ninjas.Of course not. But John did not provides us with charts of that kind.

He made up some charts involving one or two attackers. I suggest that a number of people who have been saying that they could handle any contingency with their five shot revolvers might benefit from pondering those charts.

As far as the rise of multiple attackers in home invasions, I assume the majority of them are not professional hitmen, coming to do in the owner and his wife. They are there to rob and will avoid a confrontation.I agree.

The greater danger lies in the risk of attacks out of doors. The attackers are most likely not professional hitmen either, but they do not avoid confrontations.

[Billy Shears]

The idea it will be a cool, controlled Tom Cruise Collateral moment is a pipe dream IMO.
If you watch the scene in slow motion, it's clear that the second gunman has to bobble his draw to give Cruise's character time enough to make the scene work.
Well, to play devil's advocate... That may not be so unrealistic in the context of the scene. What you have is a couple of lowlifes with piss poor gun handling (longhaired thug holds his weapon sideways, gangsta style, because he thinks it makes him look more badass and intimidating), who are used to dealing with cowed, unarmed subjects. Then, in an eyeblink, the dude they thought was harmless draws quickly and pumps a rounds into the one holding the gun. If that's not a "HOLY S#&%" moment, I don't know what would be. It would be very natural and understandable, in that circumstance, for the second thug to be caught by surprise, and a little slow on the draw, or to fumble his draw because he's hurrying too much.

Now whether the average joe who carries could do this is still doubtful. The ability to take down two bad guys like we see in that seen presupposes a level of skill and of coolness in a crisis that Cruise's character -- a cold-blooded, professional killer -- was supposed to have, and that some real life gunfighters like Wild Bill Hickok, Wes Hardin, Jelly Bryce, et. al, really did have. But I do think the average civilian with a concealed weapon permit would most likely not be capable of doing what we see in that scene.

[barnbwt]

The only way I can see someone (singular) prevailing against multiple gunmen would be if he suprised them (i.e. home invasion defense). In such a scenario, panic among the attackers would be nearly guaranteed, and at least one of them would be down before they could return fire. Otherwise, the defender would be mobbed by bullets or bodies before he can accomplish much to remedy the situation (unless you're Sam Fisher, of course ;))

But for the shootout postulated, If 12 shots are required for two guys, how long does it take you to fire 12 semi-aimed shots? How many shots could they throw back in that time, at the same "30% hit-rate" as yourself? Can you then get 12 shots out in the first place? Odds (at any point) of the attacker(s) or yourself panicking, being injured, or running away? It's more a "Game Theory" question than a Statistics question because of all the human factors involved, and tiny dataset. I'd be willing to bet though, that it basically hashes out as "the side that gets shot first, loses" nearly every time. (Although, there are shootings where both sides empty their (sideways) pistols without harming anyone :p...)

The shopkeeper mentioned earlier "won", I believe, because he was well trained, and consistently underestimated by his attackers. He also had a plan (any plan) for what to do when a goon came knocking. The first time, they probably assumed he was unarmed, and the subsequent times (that guy must've loved gunfights to stick around as long as he did :rolleyes:) ill-trained goons botched the operations and weren't prepared for rapid, mulitple "New York Reloads" (I think I read the play-by-play on Ayoob's site, or something). Survival was attributable to luck, a plan (any plan), practice, and the ability to keep fighting after being shot (also luck, IMO). But that was such a ridiculously over-the-top scenario that guy was in, that I don't try to apply it to my situation. Now if you're planning on man-to-man siege-warfare, by all means. But plan for Molotov Cocktails and machine guns, too. That guy eventually wised up and got the hell outta there, but not after being shot (5 times?!).

TCB

...cool, controlled Tom Cruise Collateral moment...
*geek voice* Dude, that was just a movie... :D

[coalman]

One might do the job--if it just happens to hit something vital.

Agreed. I explained myself poorly I guess. In contect of my whole post, my point was that a predictable, consistent double tap is not likely. Nor, IMO, controlled fire of any kind for that matter for almost all shooters. What's more likely is to point fire upon the first threat then move to the second once you feel/think it more a threat, then the third and so on. That could be 1 round, 2, 3 or whatever. This was the context of my "one may be enough" comment because that might be all you get.

More "training" (i.e. practice) helps, but few will achieve the needed round count annually, or get proper "training", to develope or maintain those Tom Cruise Collateral "skills". I'm a realist, and I've never been a lower capacity (e.g. 5 shot snubby) disciple to begin with.

The "what ifs" and "yeah, buts" go on forever because it's all imagination until it's not. And, when it not, you do the best with whatcha got.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by barnbwt: The only way I can see someone (singular) prevailing against multiple gunmen would be if he suprised them (i.e. home invasion defense). By far the best way to handle home invaders is to shoot from a defensive position as they step into your field of fire--if they are so unfortunate as to have failed to heed your warnings.

As discussed here (http://www.downrange.tv/blog/on-the-best-defense-multiple-attackers/13578/), multiple assailants are not uncommon; thus, the defender really owes it to himself or herself to develop the skills necessary to prevail against them, starting with avoidance and fast threat identification and including successful tactics and effective shooting.

But for the shootout postulated, If 12 shots are required for two guys, how long does it take you to fire 12 semi-aimed shots?Not long at all.

Watching this part of the same recent episode of The Best Defense (http://www.downrange.tv/blog/the-best-defense-online-engaging-multiple-attackers-with-a-handgun/13612/) should prove to be a very worthwhile way to invest a little less than nine minutes of your time.

You will note that the host, Mike Seeklander (http://www.history.com/shows/top-shot/bios/mike-seeklander), fires four shots at the first target and four at the second, each engagement occurring in about a second. In the second demonstration, he fires three at the first and five at the second, again taking about a second for each target.

I would pay less attention to that than to the tactical discussion.

Posted by coalman: In contect of my whole post, my point was that a predictable, consistent double tap is not likely. Nor, IMO, controlled fire of any kind for that matter for almost all shooters. What's more likely is to point fire upon the first threat then move to the second once you feel/think it more a threat, then the third and so on. That could be 1 round, 2, 3 or whatever. This was the context of my "one may be enough" comment because that might be all you get.I agree--that is the right way to do it if possible; however, if someone is rushing with an edged weapon at close range, it may be more prudent to fire several shots very quickly while trying to get out of the way..

John had to select a simple set of assumptions in order to come up with a set of charts that can be readily understood.

[NG VI]

He did a great job.

I would assume that at any reasonably close distance, once you start making hits on a person your chance to hit again would go up quite substantially. That assumes that you are even moderately proficient, a box or two a year shooter may not have the same ingrained skills as far as landing shots repeatably.

I think that for a combination of reasons, not least that the hardest shot to get off accurately is likely going to be the first one, and that the attacker will hopefully show at least some reaction to being hit, even if it's a very slight reduction in speed of movement and violence of action.

Sorry I didn't complete that sentence before I posted earlier.

[JohnKSa]

1. There is absolutely no way to accurately predict what the reaction of any particular individual will be to a gunshot wound. That is absolutely correct, and explaining that these calculations make no attempt to do any such thing is a part of why the initial post is "long and complicated". ;)to speculate how many rounds will be needed to "stop" an attacker is a useless exercise.There is no speculation as to what is required to stop an attacker. For the purposes of the calculations an assumption is made. However, the assumption can be modified and the calculations rerun with different assumptions. In order to get a data set that allowed a reasonable comparison between different hit rates and capacities, there must be some assumption, so I made one.

There is absolutely no attempt on my part to imply that 2 hits on an attacker will always be required to, or will always suffice to neutralize an attacker, it's just a number used to allow the calculations and comparisons.The typical criminal attack will involve a single perpetrator, maybe two.I tend to agree. That's why I ran the numbers first for a single perpetrator, and then again for two. The plots show data for two perpetrator scenarios.I didn't read the entire original post because it was way too long and complicated.I think that given your obvious interest in the topic, you might find the OP a worthwhile read. At the least, it would certainly allow you to craft responses that are more applicable to the data presented in the OP.

[bds]

Oops, duplicate post.

[bds]

2. Civilians coming under gang attack are very rare. Average citizens very rarely need to worry about engaging multiple opponents. The typical criminal attack will involve a single perpetrator, maybe two. Not that multiple person attacks never happen, but they are few and far between.
Depends on where you live. Home invasion robberies do occur more frequently in metropolitan cities. Appreciate the OP/thread for the "reality" of possibly engaging multiple attackers for a given HD shooting. When your targets move fast and shoot back, it is a very different situation than shooting stationary paper/cardboard targets at the range.

When a gang does attack, they are cowards. If they were courageous they wouldn't feel the need to operate as a group. I suspect that in 99.9% of such cases a single gunshot, Hell, simply displaying a weapon will scatter the attackers. The only way you will shoot more than one or two gang members is if you can hit them in the back as they run (which is a bad idea from a legal standpoint).
Review of home invasion robberies in my city/county revealed that increasing number of invasions occur with organized gang "teams" comprised of spotters and well armed intruders who follow a scripted routine (monitor a house/neighborhood for several days/weeks, enter through back patio/kitchen door, tie up the family members, systematically search the house for valuables, rape/execute family members despite being cooperative, etc.). It is the armed gang members who are determined, cocky and confident instead of the home owners. PD/SD officers I shoot with on occasion caution that these gang members are likely to engage in a gun fight rather than to run/scatter with a single gunshot.

Read this excerpt from 2011 FBI report on gangs on changing trends - http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/
Gangs and the Military
Gang recruitment of active duty military personnel constitutes a significant criminal threat to the US military. Members of nearly every major street gang, as well as some prison gangs and OMGs, have been reported on both domestic and international military installations ... Gang members with military training pose a unique threat to law enforcement personnel because of their distinctive weapons and combat training skills and their ability to transfer these skills to fellow gang members.

As OP posted, I rather factor in "worst case scenario" and be better prepared/armed/practiced than be saying, "Oh crap." Are you prepared to defend against several attackers who rush in through the back door with AK47s? Yup, your prized safe queens and range toys in the gun safe won't help you when that happens. Yes, we do carry INSIDE the house. ;)

If you live in a city/state where home invasion robberies don't occur, good for you but have sympathy for the rest of us and help us with more realistic/practical discussion on engaging multiple attackers because that's our sad reality.
Key Findings
Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others ... Major cities and suburban areas experience the most gang-related violence.

Gang members are acquiring high-powered, military-style weapons and equipment which poses a significant threat because of the potential to engage in lethal encounters with law enforcement officers and civilians.

Gang-Related Violent Crime
Gang-related crime and violence continues to rise ... gang members are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and much higher in others. Some jurisdictions in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Texas report that gangs are responsible for at least 90 percent of crime ... regions experiencing the most violent crime—including southern California, Texas, and Florida—also have a substantial gang presence. Street gangs are involved in a host of violent criminal activities, including assault, drug trafficking, extortion, firearms offenses, home invasion robberies, homicide, intimidation, shootings, and weapons trafficking.

Prison gang members, who exert control over many street gang members, often engage in crime and violence upon their return to the community. Gang members returning to the community from prison have an adverse and lasting impact on neighborhoods, which may experience notable increases in crime, violence, and drug trafficking.

Gang Infiltration of Corrections, Law Enforcement, and Government
Gang infiltration of law enforcement, government, and correctional agencies poses a significant security threat due to the access criminals have to sensitive information pertaining to investigations or protected persons. Gang members serving in law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities may compromise security and criminal investigations and operations, while acquiring knowledge and training in police tactics and weapons. Corrupt law enforcement officers and correctional staff have assisted gang members in committing crimes and have impeded investigations.

2010 DOJ report on California gangs - http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=home%20invasion%20robbery%20by%20organized%20gang%20members&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Foag.ca.gov%2Fsites%2Fall%2Ffiles%2Fpdfs%2Fpublications%2Forg_crime2010.pdf&ei=ZQnwT5_yG8b82gXH5-mDAg&usg=AFQjCNHOPdqilnWwq4uGgSjkTBZzk0v-Qw&cad=rja

[Hangingrock]

Assumptions are points of convenience in establishing a viewpoint. The true meaning of assume can or may mean: ass-u-me. Other terms “In Theory” or “In All Probability” those are used also in presenting a viewpoint. Data may be manipulated to prove or disprove a position/viewpoint.

In the July issue of Precession Shooting an article Writers Discussion Part II. There is a story related that occurred in South Africa. A South African veteran of Angola interrupted a bank robbery by individuals armed with automatic and semiautomatic weapons. The veteran armed with a BHP (Browning High Power) pistol engaged the individuals at an extended distance, moving, using cover and caused great mischief. The robbers could not locate their antagonist because they looked close but not far or other wise they would have killed him. Now the South African veteran may or may not have had a “Death Wish” but his example would be outside of the accepted norm.

Statistics and grim reality some times clash when your circumstance falls outside the accepted norm. An instructor at the Jungle Warfare School at Fort Sherman in the Canal Zone four decades plus past made the statement “How far up a goat’s rear end can you look” or of recent reference a Special Forces NCO “You don’t know what you don’t know”.

[Averageman]

I would like to see how someone with training and practise would do.
I have a fairly extensive amount of training and experiance and shoot between 100 and 300 rounds weekly and participate in IDPA matches on weekends.
I would like to think I have a bit more experiance than the average "Bad Guy" but who knows?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Hangingrock: Assumptions are points of convenience in establishing a viewpoint.I won't try to speak for John in stating his intent in going through the considerable effort in developing the calculations and displaying them in an understandable manner.

However, for me at least, the assumptions he has chosen do not lend themselves at all toward the establishment of any kind of viewpoint; nor are the assumptions the real key to the message.

What we learn from John's post, and it came as a surprise to me, is a set of probabilities that would apply, given certain reasonably plausible assumptions.

Let's recap the assumptions:

Two hits on each assailant constitutes success.
The shooter is able to continue shooting until success is achieved or he or she runs out of ammunition.
The probability of hitting, which one can vary, is the same for each shot.
The shooter stops shooting at the target after having achieved two hits on the target.


How valid are they?

The first one is plausible for the first attacker. Variations from the assumption are likely to be on the high side, reducing the probability of success for a given number of total rounds fired, because one can only go lower by one, but one can go quite a bit higher. For a second attacker, the number could range from zero, should the attacker disengage, to several shots.

If the second assumption proves invalid, success is not achieved--same as not having enough ammunition, or not being able to hit the target.

The third is not realistic, but without it, the stats would be too difficult to present or to comprehend.

Variation from the fourth, which was also necessary to keep the problem reasonably simple, would have to be on the upside and could again reduce the chance of success for the same number of rounds.

Now let's consider the calculations. What they show is that, given those assumptions, having a low capacity firearm in hand may serve well as a deterrent, but should deterrence fail, there is a reasonably high likelihood that the weapon would prove inadequate for the task should the firearm ever be needed.

That, for me, is a real eyeopener.

[epijunkie67]

This is exactly why I switched my ccw to a higher capacity weapon. Although I never had such concrete numbers I've done a lot of reading about civilian firearms engagements. In a surprisingly large number of cases the weapon was fired until empty. In a surprisingly large number of cases more than one assailant was involved. Reloading is also unlikely to occur.

I came away with the sense that in a real world firefight 6 rounds was very likely to be insufficient. Obviously we can't carry around ARs and AKs with 30 round mags but we can carry a larger capacity handgun. I recently purchased an M&P9c and a PT111 that both double the round count of my PM9. After breaking them both in and determining their reliability I'll be switching to one as my ccw.

[Lawdawg45]

I would like to see how someone with training and practise would do.
I have a fairly extensive amount of training and experiance and shoot between 100 and 300 rounds weekly and participate in IDPA matches on weekends.
I would like to think I have a bit more experiance than the average "Bad Guy" but who knows?

Good comment, and the type of training is critical. For decades LEO's have put millions of rounds down range but still had a 50% drop in accuracy under real fire, and research showed the Parasympathetic Nervous System (fight or flight syndrome) to be the biggest opponent. Training for recruits recently has been modified to simulate this reaction by adding physical endurance sprints immediately before firing, such as running full tilt for a 100 yards or crawling through an obstacle course, and some even use flash bang devices.;)

LD

[PabloJ]

Good comment, and the type of training is critical. For decades LEO's have put millions of rounds down range but still had a 50% drop in accuracy under real fire, and research showed the Parasympathetic Nervous System (fight or flight syndrome) to be the biggest opponent. Training for recruits recently has been modified to simulate this reaction by adding physical endurance sprints immediately before firing, such as running full tilt for a 100 yards or crawling through an obstacle course, and some even use flash bang devices.;)

LD
These results are not surprising at all. When I see husband or boyfriend help gal or significant other but five shot revolver I cringe....."the tear gas/stun gun section is over there folks". I suspect a person with tinge of sociopathy would outscore most even members of elite fighting units.

[Owen Sparks]

In the real world if you start shooting people usually scatter like chickens unless you are facing a professional military unit. Self sacrifice in combat requires highly diciplined people who are willing to put the mission above their own lives. Common criminals usually are selfish and lazy by nature and want something for little effort. That is why they would rather steal than work. People like this are usually not going to lay down their lives so that one of their buddies can walk off with your giant screen plasma TV. If you shoot the first one there probably will not be any more targets.

[Hangingrock]

From the perspective of a youthful inexperience of bringing a pistol to a rifle fight armed with a 1911A1 and three (seven round) magazines. One of my three MOS’s dictated that I’m issued the previously mentioned pistol as opposed to a rifle. So that said I am not primarily a shooter. The problem is that circumstances/situations are lest we say not as we would envision or like them to be.

So when some one runs a spread sheet in regards to potential wounding/lethal hits and weapon ammunition capacity rationalizing a certain number of wounding/lethal hits solves a problem or has the potential to solve a problem I’m a skeptic based on my experiences which are I’ll say limited but lasting impressions.

Two solid hits to what is referred to as center mass with a 1911A1, one with a M1 carbine, and the finishing shot with a M14 the recipient being knocked down twice before finally being put out of the fight. There were more shooting incidents that day but the first typifies the fact by the end of the day I had supplemented my pistol with a rifle.

In closing one may also be a recipient of wounding/lethal hits.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Owen Sparks: If you shoot the first one there probably will not be any more targets.That is of course a possibility, but one has to decide in advance whether to accept or to mitigate the very real risk that it will not turn out that way.

In any event, that point was already addressed in Post #13:

That [(the assymption that in 99.9% of such cases a single gunshot ... will scatter the attackers)] 's another thing that cannot be predicted.

In an incident in which a couple of robbers try to take something for the sake of its monetary value, a second perp will likely run after the shooting starts, if he can safely do so, to rob again some other day.

If he cannot, all bets are off.

If quickly obtaining a car different from the one they have been driving, or a car with a higher supply of gasoline, or a car that is still able to be driven, is essential to the continued travel and to the escape of the perps(perps of that kind are very common along the highways that go through our area), it would seem very imprudent to count on anyone taking off after the shooting starts.

It was also addressed in Post # 28.

For a second attacker, the number [of shots] could range from zero, should the attacker disengage, to several shots.

Let's ty to avoid going in circles here.

[Owen Sparks]

Therefore, we can assume that unless you are involved in international espionage, are a major player in the illicit drug trade or you are a Don of a major Mafia family your chances of being assaulted in your home by a paramilitary death squad are essentially zero. Take cover and start shooting and the bad guys will scramble. Someone once did a study of over 20 years worth of 'The armed citizen' articles from the American Rifleman and there was not one case of a besieged homeowner having to reload while fighting off intruders.

[JohnKSa]

So when some one runs a spread sheet in regards to potential wounding/lethal hits and weapon ammunition capacity rationalizing a certain number of wounding/lethal hits solves a problem or has the potential to solve a problem I’m a skeptic based on my experiences which are I’ll say limited but lasting impressions.There is nothing in the calculations or the assumptions relating to wounding or lethality.

The idea was to find out what the likelihood of scoring 2 or more hits on either one or two attackers (depending on the numbers poked into the spreadsheet) given a fixed hit rate probability (another number poked in) and a certain number of shots (a third parameter than can be varied) available to accomplish that goal.

The calculations do that and nothing more.Two solid hits to what is referred to as center mass with a 1911A1, one with a M1 carbine, and the finishing shot with a M14 the recipient being knocked down twice before finally being put out of the fight. There were more shooting incidents that day but the first typifies the fact by the end of the day I had supplemented my pistol with a rifle.Yup, tried to make that point. The results assume that 2 hits is enough. That means that your experience shows that the probability of success may actually be WORSE than what was calculated for a given capacity/# of shots and hit rate.In closing one may also be a recipient of wounding/lethal hits.Tried to make that point as well. The assumption is that the defender will get to fire all his rounds. Obviously that isn't always true in the real world, nor is it generally true that your hit rate probability will remain the same after being hit yourself.

The calculations give a sort of "best case" answer based on the stated assumptions. It's certainly possible, that neutralizing a person in the real world might take more than 2 hits from a carry pistol or that a person might be killed or badly injured before firing all his shots.

There's no way to factor all that in, and there's no attempt made to do so. The results provide a limited insight into one very narrowly defined aspect of handgun self-defense. They are not intended to, nor has any claim been made that they fully and accurately replicate all the intricacies of a real-world gunfight.Therefore, we can assume that unless you are involved in international espionage, are a major player in the illicit drug trade or you are a Don of a major Mafia family your chances of being assaulted in your home by a paramilitary death squad are essentially zero. Take cover and start shooting and the bad guys will scramble. Someone once did a study of over 20 years worth of 'The armed citizen' articles from the American Rifleman and there was not one case of a besieged homeowner having to reload while fighting off intruders.The bad guys will scramble except when they don't. It's true that bad guys tend to run when the shooting starts, but it's also true that's only a tendency, not an absolute.

1. If you're convinced that the bad guys will always scramble when you "take cover and start shooting" you can dispense with a firearm entirely and just carry a noisemaker that looks convincingly like a gun.

2. If you don't believe there's any chance at all of facing multiple attackers then take a look at the first part of the OP that deals with facing a single attacker and ignore the rest.

[Owen Sparks]

Very few people are willing to 'take one for the team' outside of the military. If you respond with armed resistance most criminals will flee unless cornered. Real life is not like an IDPA match where the bad guys are stapled to targer frames and can not run away.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Owen Sparks: Therefore, we can assume that unless you are involved in international espionage, are a major player in the illicit drug trade or you are a Don of a major Mafia family your chances of being assaulted in your home by a paramilitary death squad are essentially zero.What that has to do with this discussion, I don't know.

Someone once did a study of over 20 years worth of 'The armed citizen' articles from the American Rifleman and there was not one case of a besieged homeowner having to reload while fighting off intruders.Reloading is not the subject of this thread, and the cited study, which has been covered here several times, is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Very few people are willing to 'take one for the team' outside of the military.Allrighty, then. The question is, what might a second assailant decide to do for himself.

If you respond with armed resistance most criminals will flee unless cornered.One more time, do you really think it prudent to base your strategy upon what you think "most criminals" will do?

What is it that you are trying to say?

[bds]

Someone once did a study of over 20 years worth of 'The armed citizen' articles from the American Rifleman and there was not one case of a besieged homeowner having to reload while fighting off intruders.
Recent home invasions involving more than one intruder (first example with three robbers pretending to be FBI agents):

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8273717
suspects were wearing ski masks and had badges identifying themselves as FBI agents when they barged into the home after midnight Wednesday.


http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/06/22/2884664/4-guilty-in-valley-home-invasion.html
The four defendants were part of a crew of 10 suspects who targeted affluent homeowners in Fresno and Merced counties


http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8535612
several men entered the house at around 3 a.m. on Wednesday.

A couple in their 60s was sleeping when the suspects rang their doorbell and kicked open their front door. The men barged into their bedroom


http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jun/11/home-invasion-robbery-in-san-marcos/
Three men, one armed with a knife and one armed with a semi-automatic handgun, entered the residence ... They told the man not to call authorities and bound him with zip-ties


http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_20646081/san-francisco-victims-held-at-gunpoint-mission-district
Two suspects barged into a home in San Francisco's Mission District and held several people at gunpoint while they ransacked the residence on Wednesday night, police said. The suspects, two men believed to be in their 30s, came through the front door carrying handguns


http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8543730
four men accused in two home-invasion robberies ... The first robbery happened on the 1000 block of South Dwight Avenue. The second robbery occurred 45 minutes later on the 400 block of North Kemp Avenue.


http://scoopsandiego.com/news/local/suspects-sought-in-bay-ho-home-invasion-robbery/article_b9d7ce0e-b184-11e1-966a-001a4bcf6878.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8475027

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8459020

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8352431

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8543377

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8582196

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/06/26/2888616/police-seek-3-in-northwest-fresno.html

[Teachu2]

If success (survival) is the goal, it might be wise to consider other options. Drawing and shooting it out isn't going to be a wise course of action unless you're sure they'll give up easily or unless there is no other reasonable course of action available. Bold underline mine.

Isn't that always the case?

The scenario here - multiple determined attackers - is still pretty rare for people not engaged in high-risk occupations. In my area, home invasions have been limited to targeted individuals who run cash businesses, ie pawnbrokers and drug dealers.

The odds can be shifted favorably three ways: more capacity, better accuracy, and more effective caliber choice. If you move from a .38 snubbie 5-shooter with a 30% hit rate to a .45acp 10+1 with a 50% hit rate, the odds of going home increase significantly.

There are other problems with applying the 30% police rate. Granted, it's a real-world number for that particular group, but (as a former LEO) I believe that I can still outshoot the majority of LEOs - as can many firearms enthusiasts. Practice is key - and a very high % of LEOs simply do not practice. Some members here shoot more rounds in a year than many LEOs do in a career.

Bottom line - carry as much gun as you can shoot well, and practice often. Pay attention to your surroundings, and avoid high-risk behavior. If the SHTF, make your 1st shot count - it may be all you'll need.

[JohnKSa]

Isn't that always the case?At the risk of hijacking my own thread, no, it isn't always the case. Generally speaking, compliance, as a tactic, offers a high probability of surviving uninjured. When faced with two determined armed attackers, it's highly likely that compliance offers a better chance of surviving uninjured than trying to shoot it out.The odds can be shifted favorably three ways: more capacity, better accuracy, and more effective caliber choice. If you move from a .38 snubbie 5-shooter with a 30% hit rate to a .45acp 10+1 with a 50% hit rate, the odds of going home increase significantly.The calculations make no attempt to compare calibers, but the results indicate that increasing capacity (with the assumption that the defender is able to make use of that capacity) and increasing the hit rate probability both improve the chances of "success" as defined by scoring 2 or more hits on each attacker.There are other problems with applying the 30% police rate.The 30% hit rate assumption applies only to the two tables. The plots provided allow you to determine the chances of "success" for any capacity from 5 rounds to 11 rounds with any hit rate probability from 10% to 90%. There's an explanatory paragraph above each plot that tells how to use them.

[Lawdawg45]

Very few people are willing to 'take one for the team' outside of the military. If you respond with armed resistance most criminals will flee unless cornered. Real life is not like an IDPA match where the bad guys are stapled to targer frames and can not run away.
When you or I feel threatened, the weapon comes out. When we fear for our life, we open fire. Why do we assume that a career criminal or group of career criminals would do anything less? ;)

LD

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Teachu2: The scenario here - multiple determined attackers - is still pretty rare for people not engaged in high-risk occupations.

In On the Best Defense: Multiple Attackers (Number 50, Episode 11 Season 4) which has been linked in a previous post, Michael Bane states,

A mugging situation is often thought of as a one on one attack. In most cases, there are more than one. This is reality you need to factor in when it comes to your self defense plan.

In that program, it is pointed out that whether it is necessary to employ deadly force against a second attacker is a question--a question that one will likely have to answer very quickly indeed.

In the data set that has been linked in Post #13, multiple attackers were involved in 75% of the incidents.

The question is, for what do you want to prepare?

In my area, home invasions have been limited to targeted individuals who run cash businesses, ie pawnbrokers and drug dealers.If you say so--but that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Also irrelevant, but worth keeping in mind, is that violent criminal attacks are more prevalent outside the home than inside.

There are other problems with applying the 30% police rate.I see that John has already responded to that.

The 30% hit rate assumption applies only to the two tables. The plots provided allow you to determine the chances of "success" for any capacity from 5 rounds to 11 rounds with any hit rate probability from 10% to 90%. There's an explanatory paragraph above each plot that tells how to use them.

[Billy Shears]

When you or I feel threatened, the weapon comes out. When we fear for our life, we open fire. Why do we assume that a career criminal or group of career criminals would do anything less?
Because you and I are being attacked and defending ourselves; they're not. There's a big difference.

As I've said, human predators are like any other predators, they're looking for prey not a fight. If a target looks like too tough a nut to crack, they often back down and go in search of easier prey. Sure there are exceptions, but this is why lots of would be muggers are driven off without a shot ever being fired when their intended victim produces a gun. This instinct for self preservation doesn't abandon criminals when they operate in groups, nor does their innate selfishness.

[jimbo555]

It boils down to whether you have a low capacity or a high capacity firearm if you are confronted by multiple determined and trained individuals you will most likely lose.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Billy Shears: This instinct for self preservation doesn't abandon criminals when they operate in groups, nor does their innate selfishness.I think we can accept that for the general case, possible exceptions being meth addicts.

So, the operative question would seem to be whether or not the criminal would think that breaking off the attack would be best way to escape and survive.

He may well see it that way. Or not, particularly if...

He is blocked from escaping.
You are firing, and he is close enough to cut you, and turning around would put him at greater risk.
The only safe and effective means of escape available to him at the time involves the taking of your automobile.


Again, the question becomes whether you want to limit your preparations to those required for the general case. I do not.

[Skribs]

You have to prepare for what you believe will occur. If you believe that multiple attackers will scatter 99% of the time, and that it isn't prudent to prepare for a situation where they don't (or where you miss), then by all means, prepare to take down one attacker and scatter the others. If they don't scatter, then its a fight you'll lose. Of course, I'm not trying to be argumentative, it's just a very likely outcome in that unlikely situation. With any defense and preparation you have ready, there is something that will defeat it.

With that all said, I come from a background of gaming, and specifically theorycrafting. I'm the guy that does the spreadsheets to figure out exactly how much throughput I can get with various builds in games that I play. So I LOVE this kind of math. Yes, it makes a lot of assumptions, but one has to make a lot of assumptions in order to even compare, as the OP said. Also, based on statistics and generic training, I don't think the OP's assumptions were all that wild.

I agree with one of Kleanbore's earlier posts, I'd fire multiple shots between assessing whether or not the target has stopped. If you fire 4 shots from a J Frame on the first target, you have one shot left for the second target...if you stopped the first target.

I'll admit, when I first started looking at the 9mm over the .40 or .45, it wasn't to get "moar bullets", it was actually to get double-digit round count in a smaller package. Although the more I look at things, the more I wonder how many would be "enough". Like the OP said, if you assume a 30% hit rate and need 4 hits to "win", then 12 rounds would only give you a 50% chance of success.

I did my math a bit differently, simply took the capacity times the accuracy, and I still get 3.6 hits out of 12 rounds, with 30% accuracy. In order to average 4 hits, you'd need 13.33 rounds (I round up to 14). I think the OP was using a more statistical model, mine is a simpler equation, but it says a lot. In order to average 6 hits (3 attackers) you need to carry an XDm 9 with +1 or a FiveseveN (or use an extended magazine).

Really makes me think twice about a revolver, a pocket pistol (as primary), or carrying without reloads.

[mcole]

one can improve the % of center mass and head shots, significantly and consequentially, by learning to "point shoot." one must also learn to also remain calm. mcole

[Skribs]

one must also learn to also remain calm

How exactly does one practice remaining calm in a self defense situation, without putting themselves in self defense situations?

[Lawdawg45]

Because you and I are being attacked and defending ourselves; they're not. There's a big difference.

As I've said, human predators are like any other predators, they're looking for prey not a fight. If a target looks like too tough a nut to crack, they often back down and go in search of easier prey. Sure there are exceptions, but this is why lots of would be muggers are driven off without a shot ever being fired when their intended victim produces a gun. This instinct for self preservation doesn't abandon criminals when they operate in groups, nor does their innate selfishness.

I agree, and when you step out by yourself with a weapon, that's when the 2 or 3 home invaders will open up on you. You speculate that they will run, but statistics show they often stay and fight.;)

LD

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: Really makes me think twice about a revolver, a pocket pistol (as primary), or carrying without reloads.Unless one chooses to remain in denial, it really does force one to at least think twice about it.

That said, I have not yet stopped carrying my J-Frame when going around what I think to be the more benign areas during the daytime. I am, however, more likely now to carry something else when heading to parking lots near big stores and near the major highways. My thought process hasn't changed, but I do think I have a somewhat better appreciation of what it may take to mitigate the risks.

John's analysis would almost certainly influence my thinking process were I in the market for a new compact pistol. Kimber, Ruger, and Smith and Wesson have all introduced new compact single column 9MM pistols that are appealing from a size standpoint, but at this point I'm pretty sure I would accept an additional 6MM in width before giving up the additional magazine capacity of, for example, a Smith 9c.

[Skribs]

Kleanbore, what makes certain areas safer than others? I used to have the philosophy that some areas I only needed my LCP and others I want my XDm handy, but I've since come to the conclusion that I want my XDm anywhere, because if I do get into a situation where I need it, it's not going to matter where I am.

ETA, for clarification: I know in some places you are less likely to get attacked. i.e. in gang territory, the likelihood of an attack is greater. But why does one assume that in an area where the likelihood of being attacked is less, that they will need less firepower IF they are attacked?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: Kleanbore, what makes certain areas safer than others?Great question. I'll share my reasoning.

If I am driving from my house to one of a few stores we frequent that have small parking lots and that do not really have very convenient access to a highway, I think it reasonable to assess the risk as rather low, compared to...

...stores frequented by a lot of customers, with big parking lots, near bad areas, and easily accessed from major highways.

I have seen, and more than one of my friends have seen, drivers casing the lots in the big-store areas, obviously looking for victims. One actually witnessed an armed robbery recently (round count would not have mattered--the victim was taken by surprise).

Last year I was quite concerned when someone followed me into a large service station near a highway and kept his eyes on me until I drove out. I went the wrong way to lose him.

However, the one armed robbery that I have foiled (by pulling out a cell phone) occurred last summer in a most unlikely place--a high end neighborhood and small lot, far from the Interstate.

I used to have the philosophy that some areas I only needed my LCP and others I want my XDm handy, but I've since come to the conclusion that I want my XDm anywhere, because if I do get into a situation where I need it, it's not going to matter where I am.Probably a wise strategy.

[Skribs]

In my edit I did kind of cover I know the difference between gang territory and soccer mom suburbia, but why is it that we assume the likelihood of being attacked equates to how much firepower we need if attacked? Just some food for thought.

I also was thinking in your post about the size difference between various autoloaders, such as the shield vs. the m&p compact. Specifically I was thinking of ankle carry, although I know that wasn't the intent of your post, but here's one thing to consider: the difference between the two may only be 0.23" width. However, the difference in the magazine width is probably bigger, I'm guessing 1/4-3/8 inch width between the double and single stack magazines.

So if you're pocketing the magazines, it's one thing to consider. If you're carrying magazines on the opposite ankle of your BUG (like I'm considering), then it's a bigger point. That is, of course, if you ankle carry the mags. If you don't, then the minor width difference is all you're looking at.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: In my edit I did kind of cover I know the difference between gang territory and soccer mom suburbia, but why is it that when we assume the likelihood of being attacked equates to how much firepower we need if attacked? Just some food for thought.AHA!

You have uncovered a flaw in my reasoning.

[Kleanbore]

Some of us are old enough to remember Colt's advertisements for the Cobra and Detective Special that emphasized that "all important sixth round". We also know that it made a big difference in sales to law enforcement personnel who chose Colt revolvers over their five shot Smith and Wesson counterparts.

If you take a look at John's second graph, you can see that simple statistics show that that sixth shot just might turn out to be all important! Not to mention a seventh, for those who carry a 1911. Choose any hit probability you like. I chose 50%.

Obvious? Well, if it was obvious to you, OK, but I have to admit that I had never looked at it this way.

[jungle]

3 seconds, 3 rounds , 3 yards. Statistics are wonderful, as is conjecture, but people who do this for a living have settled on a hicap 9 or .40.

More rounds, better training and a lack of assumption about what you might be facing in the future, it doesn't take much to place as many variables as you can in your favor.

Predictions about the number of attackers or the hit rate are just fantasy, why not be prepared for the worst case-you do this by training and carrying a hicap pistol with at least one reload, and there isn't much more you can do.

[Lawdawg45]

Kleanbore, what makes certain areas safer than others? I used to have the philosophy that some areas I only needed my LCP and others I want my XDm handy, but I've since come to the conclusion that I want my XDm anywhere, because if I do get into a situation where I need it, it's not going to matter where I am.

ETA, for clarification: I know in some places you are less likely to get attacked. i.e. in gang territory, the likelihood of an attack is greater. But why does one assume that in an area where the likelihood of being attacked is less, that they will need less firepower IF they are attacked?

As I've said previously, this comment has caught my attention more than once. When I've questioned these people "where they would carry their LCP vs their 1911", they frequently comment when they go to places like the gas station, 7/11 for a coke, or the grocery store. Again, these places statistically are high crime areas, yet they carry their smallest, weakest handgun in these locations.:rolleyes:

LD

[X-Rap]

I carry a "weak" hand gun almost all the time and at some times it is my only one. That said I don't live in the illusion that I am armed to the level that best protects me but more like I am at the minimum armed. I am in firm belief that when at all possible I carry a 15 rd + 17 rd 9mm reload. I look at crime and criminals as evolving and so must I and the thought of multiple attackers with the presence of gangs almost everywhere now is more the norm than not. It does not mean that I believe there is a mob around every corner, more like I believe there is chance that I am not willing to gamble with.

[Lawdawg45]

I carry a "weak" hand gun almost all the time and at some times it is my only one. That said I don't live in the illusion that I am armed to the level that best protects me but more like I am at the minimum armed. I am in firm belief that when at all possible I carry a 15 rd + 17 rd 9mm reload. I look at crime and criminals as evolving and so must I and the thought of multiple attackers with the presence of gangs almost everywhere now is more the norm than not. It does not mean that I believe there is a mob around every corner, more like I believe there is chance that I am not willing to gamble with.

Clarification.....I'm not trying to sound sanctimonious, I also carry a 5 shot .38 much of the time, but my retirement philosophy is the same as when I was on the road......my handgun is a momentary tool until I can get to my vehicle and it's ample equipping.:cool:

LD

[X-Rap]

No problem, the point I was trying to make is to those who consistantly make the claim that if it can't be done with 5,6,7 or what ever the capacity of their pet gun is then it can't be done at all. IMO that is the denial element that Kleanbore mentioned and frankly while I have long been a fan of having plenty of ammo I am also guilty of advising the revolver based on its simplicity. I have given 5&6 shot revo's to my daughter, X, mother, stepmother and daughter in law mainly because in most of those cases they are unwilling to invest the time to become proficient in the use of a semi auto and few of them actually choose to carry on their person.
That is a fight I have not yet won but as they move to a more positive position of practice and carry I will certainly attempt to enlighten them on the benefits of what I consider a superior platform.

[Kleanbore]

I recently advised a man that his daughter should consider a J-Frame due to its simplicity, and she ended up getting one.

Having thought more about it, and having pondered John's graphs, I now think I would have suggested considering whether a six shot revolver would meet her needs. One might still be able to find a good Colt DS around.

My J-Frames now serve primarily in the back-up role (car carry), this having begun yesterday after this discussion and in particular, after Skribs uncovered a flaw in my reasoning that had never really occurred to me. Never too old to learn, if one is willing.

I have a lot more appreciation now for the New York Reload.

[Skribs]

Kleanbore, my Mom's first gun was a Ruger SP-101, and she actually likes her Sig P238 better. She doesn't have the finger strength to rapid fire a double action revolver, and it is slow for a different reason to fire the revolver in single action. She wanted the revolver at first, but it was after having it for a while and realizing its limitations that she settled on an autoloader, but she still only has 6 rounds in it.

How do you car carry your J-Frame, Kleanbore? I made another thread asking specifically about car carry, but since you brought it up here I thought I'd ask.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: Kleanbore, my Mom's first gun was a Ruger SP-101, and she actually likes her Sig P238 better. She doesn't have the finger strength to rapid fire a double action revolver, and it is slow for a different reason to fire the revolver in single action. She wanted the revolver at first, but it was after having it for a while and realizing its limitations that she settled on an autoloader, but she still only has 6 rounds in it.The DA pull on a J Frame is a problem for me as I get older--arthritis and tendon issues. The striker-fired M&P 9c is a lot better in that regard. I haven't fired a K-Frame or Colt in so long that I do not know how they compare.

I think most authorities will advise against using a revolver in SA mode for self defense.

I don't know about you, but I had not appreciated the tactical advantage of six over five until now. I always chalked it up to colt advertising. Seven or eight looks even better.

How do you car carry your J-Frame, Kleanbore? I made another thread asking specifically about car carry, but since you brought it up here I thought I'd ask.I have been carrying them either IWB or in a pocket holster. I too have been looking into car carry alternatives, but I'm still up in the air on that. Right now I'm using the console. We always go together to the ATM for safety, and I can get to the console easily from the passenger seat.

A Centennial or LCR in a jacket or vest pocket holster provides some real advantages in terms of quick response in a questionable close quarters situation, and I do not intend to forget that. It's just that it would not be my only resource.

[Skribs]

I think most authorities will advise against using a revolver in SA mode for self defense.

With a trigger pull on a DA revolver, some people have to use SA mode to get any sort of accuracy. So if a revolver is all you have, I'd use SA in that situation. But, like I said - my Mom was looking at it, and found that a small, SA SA was the best option for her.

A Centennial or LCR in a jacket or vest pocket holster provides some real advantages in terms of quick response in a questionable close quarters situation, and I do not intend to forget that. It's just that it would not be my only resource.

Hmmm...I have longer limbs and a shorter trunk, so while NOT in a car, I actually reach my short's pockets easier. I typically put my hands in my pockets anyway, so if I'm walking through the parking lot with a BUG I can get to it real quick.

My Dad was telling me that snub-nose revolvers weren't made for concealment, they were made for a faster draw, so I see where you're coming from with a quick response vs. higher capacity standpoint. In the OP, it was assumed you couldn't get off X rounds without the BG stopping you. However, if your option is 5 rounds from a quickly-reached snub or 3-4 rounds from a duty-sized pistol before the BG gets to you, then the snub might be the better option. Of course, 6 rounds will come a LOT faster from the autoloader before the 6th from the snub.

[Lawdawg45]

Don't hate me for throwing a twist into the conversation, but if you are limited to 5 shots in a .38 revolver, how about improving the odds by carrying a Bulldog in .44 Special? I've had one in my arsenal for over 20 years, and it's often been in my front pocket.;)

LD

[jimbo555]

"Ammo is like toilet paper...It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.";)

[Skribs]

Very interesting point, Lawdog. I think this is the first time I've seen a caliber-war-ish point brought up where the smaller and larger bullet have the same capacity (of course, I'm assuming its a bigger gun).

ETA: Expanding on that, if you are selecting a duty size autoloading pistol, and I'm just going to use Glock as an example, you have a choice in 17 rounds of 9mm or 13 rounds of .45. If you consider anything over 12 to be a luxury reserve, then the lower capacity of the .45 becomes a smaller factor when selecting between the two.

On the other hand, if you're looking at compacts, in this case I'll say XDm compact, the .40 and .45 both hold less than 12 rounds in a flush magazine, while the 9 holds 13 rounds. So in that case, to get over 12, you'll want the 9.

Not trying to turn this into a caliber war, but more looking at how the number of rounds you think you need can affect your caliber choice.

[DAP90]

The math in the OP is interesting in that it illustrates the importance of having enough ammo if the only way to “win” is to physically incapacitate your opponents via multiple hits.

Unfortunately, the tone of this thread has turned into such that ammo capacity has become an overriding concern.

I’ve been pondering that viewpoint and I just don’t buy it. Ammo capacity isn’t a trivial matter but it isn’t anywhere near the top priority for the average civilian. SD fights just don’t happen that way. Can such a fight occur? Sure, anything can happen, but it’s not common enough for ammo capacity to trump all the other factors that go into choosing the right carry gun.

The other issue is the math in the OP ignores the possibility of reloads or malfunctions. If someone only has 5 shots in the gun why can’t they reload? If the fight is such that there’s no time how do we account for malfunctions that need to be cleared and their effect on ammo capacity?

I understand that this will complicate the calculations but if we’re going to make decisions based on a simple formula we should consider that we are doing so based on incomplete info.

Still, it’s an interesting discussion so props to the OP for doing the work.

[harrygunner]

'JohnKSa' Thanks for running the numbers.

The overall picture is clear. And caliber is irrelevant. The calculations only involved probabilities of hits and numbers of shots.

I've practiced with police and always use my imagination as I train to generate stress as I train. Never had to shoot, but the one time I thought I might have to, I was fairly calm. But, there were no incoming rounds. :eek:

Beyond capacity, the other parameter we can affect is hit rate. I would say the best thing is to commit to staying with what we are trained to do in the middle of defending ourselves or others.

[jeepnik]

Now I'm joking here, so don't take it the wrong way.

What was it the fellow said about "danmed lies and statistics".

[harrygunner]

That's what I meant with "The overall picture is clear." You can run different numbers, but the point remains the same: Keep your head and make shots count.

And, the logistical cost of going to a higher capacity gun is low. Perhaps, one should up the round count.

[Skribs]

DAP, a lot of people carry 5 without a reload. So if you have 5 without a reload, then that works. And you're right - it actually made a lot of assumptions. One of those was that the shooter would get X shots off. It's a basic principle showing that 5 shots really isn't that much when you think about all of the factors involved. Against even 2 determined attackers, it can be very little.

[B!ngo]

This spreadsheet exercise helps underscore what I've been theorizing in multiple posts for months which is, round count wins out over round size - within reason of course. Starting with something like a .380 or 9mm, I would focus on trading off a larger round for more rounds because the probability of bringing an altercation to a close by actually hitting the BG (or two) is very challenging. It's why these mini-semi-autos are such a challenge. With 6 rounds you have to be a trained, experienced and fortunate shooter to prevail.
Of course, these are just probabilities likely with a huge amount of variance but the general model that they describe doesn't seem wrong.
So, I thank the OP for doing the work and documenting it carefully. Just one other thing. Does this have an implied set of time and distance factors? If the distance is compressed, the probability of a hit might increase but the need to fire more quickly may degrade the probability of a hit. Anyway, nice work.
B

[Skribs]

Bingo, mini semi-autos are also harder to shoot accurately because they trade fit-in-hand for hide-in-underwear.

[JohnKSa]

...round count wins out over round size...The calculations/results don't take caliber (round size) into account at all. They only assess the probability of making a certain number of hits, given a certain number of available shots and assuming a particular hit rate probability.

What I'm saying is that nothing in the results should be construed as comparing round count to round size or making any statement at all about terminal effect....actually hitting the BG (or two) is very challenging.That's really the primary point of the calculations. With LEO gunfight hit rates and a limited number of rounds, it's very challenging to get a decent number of hits.

And, of course, it is true that hitting the target is a pre-requisite of actually incapacitating an attacker, and that the more rounds you have available (assuming you have the time to shoot them all) the better your chances are of making hits.Does this have an implied set of time and distance factors?None whatsoever. The only indirect assumption about time is that the defender gets a chance to use all his/her available rounds. There's no assumption about distance and it's possible that at very close ranges, the hit rate probability might increase. Of course, it all gets very complicated when you start trying to factor that kind of thing in because one could assume that the opponent's hit rate could go up too and that could have a bearing on the defender's hit rate (if he gets hit) and on whether or not he gets a chance to use all the available rounds.

It's a pretty basic result. It's just about the probability of achieving either 2 or 4 hits given the very simple assumptions. Fixed hit-rate probability, fixed # of shots available....ammo capacity to trump all the other factors that go into choosing the right carry gun.The calculations don't even assess most of the factors that go into choosing a carry gun. The calculation results are very narrowly focused on one specific aspect of gunfights and are only valid if one keeps the assumptions involved in mind.

Frankly, what I get out of the numbers isn't as much about capacity as it is about the reality of gunfights.

I don't plan to change what I carry or how much ammo I carry, what has changed are my thoughts about the effectiveness of the weapon system that is my carry gun and I.

I hadn't realized how poor the chances were of actually being able to score hits on one or two opponents in a gunfight given a limited # of shots and a realistic probability of making a hit with each shot.

The realization, will, I hope, help me to make wise decisions in the event that I ever end up having to use my CCW in self-defense.

I think the biggest lesson is that the numbers show when a person, armed with a typical carry pistol, faces more than one determined attacker the biggest factor in whether the defender will "win" is whether or not one or more of the attackers gives up when the shooting starts. Something to think about.

[Skribs]

The calculations/results don't take caliber (round size) into account at all. They only assess the probability of making a certain number of hits, given a certain number of available shots and assuming a particular hit rate probability.

What I'm saying is that nothing in the results should be construed as comparing round count to round size or making any statement at all about terminal effect.

Maybe not, but the point is if you're expecting the terminal ballistics of the .45 and 9 to be somewhat similar, this shows how until you get to duty pistols, the capacity of the 9 will offer a lot better chance of hitting both targets twice.

The calculations don't even assess most of the factors that go into choosing a carry gun. The calculation results are very narrowly focused on one specific aspect of gunfights and are only valid if one keeps the assumptions involved in mind.

No, but it does assess a big part - how much capacity can affect the likelihood of stopping a determined attacker or a couple determined attackers. That plays into a lot of other choices, such as:
Revolver or Semi
Single Stack or Double
Caliber
Duty size or Compact
etc.

I mean, grip, concealability, etc. all play into as well, but so does round count.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: No, but it [the set of calculations, with the given assumptions] does assess a big part - how much capacity can affect the likelihood of stopping a determined attacker or a couple determined attackers. That plays into a lot of other choices, such as:
Revolver or Semi
Single Stack or Double
Caliber
Duty size or Compact
etc.The charts certainly do better illuminate the factors that would influence some of those choices.

However, they do not provide any real answers regarding what to carry.

I dropped into a store yesterday to look, for the first time really, at some of the hi cap 9s on the market today. Three of the best known, widely used by police departments and/or military units, were just too large for concealed carry. The ergonomics--trigger pull, safety or decocker location or shape, mag release--of several of them ruled them out for me. Some other characteristics have kept me from looking at others.

Compared to all of what I looked at yesterday, the height, thickness, length, trigger pull, and safety features of my single column .45 (officer's frame, approximately Commander length) combine to outweigh the capacity difference for me.

It does hold a lot more than five rounds.

And I'm still looking. Not only in the store, but at home. My M&P 9c met most of my needs four years ago, except that my hand hurts after a range session.

As previously mentioned, the J-Frame still has some advantages, such as the ability to be drawn quickly or even fired from a jacket pocket if necessary; it's just that I now think it prudent to add to it. New York reload, anyone?

[jad0110]

Frankly, what I get out of the numbers isn't as much about capacity as it is about the reality of gunfights.

I don't plan to change what I carry or how much ammo I carry, what has changed are my thoughts about the effectiveness of the weapon system that is my carry gun and I.

I think the biggest lesson is that the numbers show when a person, armed with a typical carry pistol, faces more than one determined attacker the biggest factor in whether the defender will "win" is whether or not one or more of the attackers gives up when the shooting starts. Something to think about.

Agreed. All things being equal, a gun that holds more rounds has an advantage. But all things are rarely equal. In the end, most days I carry a S&W K or N Frame because I can draw and fire them (point shooting or using sights) more effectively then any other platform.

From my own observations, and this is all just common sense, those that prevail in the fight for their life most frequently are the ones who were able to maintain their cool and keep their whits about them. Certainly easier said then done, but essential nonetheless. A person who maintains their focus armed with a 6 shooter will likely prevail over a guy with a hicap wonder9 shooting scared, and vice versa.

From my perspective, I live in a small town, but there are enough folks about that a 30% hit rate is simply unacceptable. I am fully aware that misses can result in tragedy, given my surroundings. I have to do better than average. Of course, avoiding such a situation in the first place is paramount. Maybe John's stats in the end highlight more than anything else the importance of always being aware of your surroundings, and if something doesn't seem right, trust your instincts and get out.

As for dealing with multiple attackers, IMO you best bet will be to very rapidly figure out who the pack leader is (again, easier said then done), and plug that guy. Very likely, this will cause the other to scatter. Maybe not though. In a situation like that, facing multiple armed, determined attackers (outnumbered 3 or more to 1), a fellow THR member summed it up best about 5 years ago stating something to the effect that a hicap auto won't save you either, but it will at least allow you to take more of them with you.

[Centurian22]

Awesome post and data presentation! I was a science major in college and a bit of a math geek at heart so this just made my day! Lots to think about, glad I plan to carry a full size xd9 with 16+1 capacity and get alot of training in with it at the range.

[Prosser]

When I was mugged, and hit over the head with a PPK/S it was by three very big guys, in a bathroom, at point blank range.

I play this over and over in my head. A PM9, at that range, would have been better then they had. I would NOT have missed at that range.

Given a choice, a Detonics Combat master with 7 rounds would have sufficed.
The gun hits VERY hard at PBR, and, I would have been able to put 3 shots on target, read chest/heart on 3 guys. The caliber, and effectiveness of the round would have been critical to the situation, considering the range, and the followup shots. It would all have been over in 5 seconds.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Prosser: The gun hits VERY hard at PBR, and, I would have been able to...I really wound't put any reliance at all on how "hard" a handgun "hits".

What matters is what it hits and destroys. That will be a function of penetration, wound channel, placement and the poset entry wound path, and how many hits you achieve.

[Hangingrock]

When subjects like this come up I usually think of excerpts from The Modern Technique of The Pistol by Morrison Gunsite Press ISBN0-9611342-3-6 Copy Right 1991. Especially the chapters: The Combat Mind Set by Jeff Cooper, The Colossal Cartridge Controversy, and The Principle of Pairs and Firing Modes.

[Skribs]

Hangingrock, can you provide some of those excerpts or at least paraphrase them? Having not read the books, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

[Prosser]

If I'm ever in the mugged situation again it looks highly likely to be under 7 feet, in dim light.
At that range my accuracy is going to be better then 30%.
At that range I'm unlikely to get off more then 6 shots, unless my initial shots
are both well placed and create enough disruption to incapacitate the primary attacker.
The state of California has limited my legal magazine capacity to 10 rounds.
At some point I would need to balance the fatness of a Glock 30 or 29 against the 10 rounds. In the past I've gone with a 1911 form since it's more to my liking, and easier to conceal. Capacity 7 in Detonics, 8 in full sized kimber.

I am not convinced the extra rounds are worth the horrible Glock trigger.

I also have guns easier to carry, and lighter. I use these while taking out the trash, etc.

.357 snub nose and PM9.

[X-Rap]

At under 7' you won't even notice that horrible Glock trigger. In a state that hamstrings you with the 10rd mags I'd pick the gun that came closest to 10 in the mag as offered from the factory.

[JohnKSa]

If I'm ever in the mugged situation again it looks highly likely to be under 7 feet, in dim light.
At that range my accuracy is going to be better then 30%.IIRC, the range and lighting conditions you note are the "average range" and "average conditions" for a typical LE gunfight. 30% is the typical hit rate for LEOs under those conditions.

But let's assume that you shoot significantly better than that.

With 2 assailants, 6 shots, and a hit rate of 60%--twice as good as the LEO average--your chances of getting more than one hit on each opponent are about 55%. That's only 5% better than a coin flip.

With all the same variables but increasing the number of shots available by just ONE (and assuming you can get all 7 rounds off) your chances of getting multiple hits on each assailant go up to a little over 70% chance of success.

[Prosser]

From the other facts posted:
"< 7 FEET 68 (48.9%) 71 (51.1%) 139 (47%) 52 (82.5%)"
At 7 feet or less, the chances of hits go up to 50%.
at 7 to 15 feet it drops to the 30% you suggest.

In my state, if the guy is 5 yards away he better be shooting at me if I'm shooting.

I do think it's more likely to be double teamed in my area, my size,220, then a single attacker.

I can't help but think that the 30% average hit ratio for LEO's is due to Glock triggers.;) My brief, unpleasant experience with a Glock 30 at 11 yards supports that.

A lifetime of 1911 use is not going by the wayside for 2-3 extra rounds, when I'm already at 7 and 8. Faster reloads would seem to be in order if you have a 50% hit rate, and the BG's continue to come.

I have shot 1911's well from the first time I picked one up. Only a fool would ignore something that has worked for 40 years, for a boogie man of a couple extra rounds.

Ideally we would have 9 round magazines that worked for 1911's. Don't see why you couldn't do that with minimal extension on a standard magazine.

I also like actually being able to put the full number of rounds into the magazines, something Glock 30 magazines aren't exactly quick or easy to do with.

If CCW's ever become available in our county, legally, or I move, I would certainly consider carrying two 1911's.

[Prosser]

DTap Moderator please delete

[M1key]

Yeah those terrible Glock triggers...:neener: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taxzwdnCfhc


I am not comfortable with carrying less than 15 rounds in 9mm or 10 rounds in larger calibers.

M

[Rexster]

I am not really into math, and the charts in the original post do not show up on this gadget, anyway, but I thought I would mention something I have posted here on THR before, that as a street LEO, I have, indeed, noticed an upward trend in multiple armed suspects in street robberies in my patrol area, which has become quite gentrified, and is no longer a "bad" part of town. (I have generally tried to keep a certain level of anonymity and deniability in my forum posts, due to rules about discussing certain subjects on social media, but I may as well, in the December of my police career, "out" myself and say it is
Houston, Texas.)

There has also been a personally-perceived rise in armed home invasions, with the victims no longer predominately drug dealers. A recent one, where I photographed the scene and injuries, seemed to involve the bad guys hitting a wrong address, based on mistaken identity of who lived at the address.
----------------------
Quoting Kleanbore: "As previously mentioned, the J-Frame still has some advantages, such as the ability to be drawn quickly or even fired from a jacket pocket if necessary; it's just that I now think it prudent to add to it. New York reload, anyone?"

That is what I often do, but with the slightly bigger SP101 being the general foundation, rather than a smaller J-snub. (I do have a Model 642-based S&W PC snubby, but prefer a bit more heft, to mitigate recoil, and in case a bad guy bumps his head on my gun.) When I venture beyond the property line, I usually have an SP101, plus, at minimum, another SP101, if not an S&W Model 19, GP100, or 1911. I may finally add a G26 to the equation, soon.

[YankeeFlyr]

You're over-thinking this.

[Prosser]

I like the 34 and 35 and have shot the .40 version, in a full race gun:
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/RACE%20GLOCK/Glock35racegun.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/RACE%20GLOCK/raceglocktarget.jpg

Gun I shot had around a 3 pound trigger, with a short reset. FAR different from your average Glock 29 or 30, usually used for CCW.

I do wonder how you would suggest carrying a 34 as a CCW?
Saying the 34 is a CCW gun, and posting that video is like saying a 3500 dollar target race gun is good for CCW. However, since you can carry a cocked and locked 1911, with a 2-3 pound trigger, and carry it safely, my posting something like the world's fastest 1911 shooter wouldn't be wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQhXkvAVV78&feature=related

If you go with the best gun is the one someone can shoot the fastest, I guess we need a .45 Colt SA done by Bob Munden, and a S&W Jerry model:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsU5AMxvlKg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

[B!ngo]

Bingo, mini semi-autos are also harder to shoot accurately because they trade fit-in-hand for hide-in-underwear.
Good point. So you're saying that not only do they carry a limited number of rounds that, when compared with your likely hit rate, may be too few AND they likely induce a lower hit rate because they are harder to grip and aim.
If so, the proverbial double whammy. Makes sense to me.
Of course, like many people note about the .22LR for self-defense, better than carrying nothing. But it may beg the question of, after calculating the probabilities, which is more effective? A micro 9mm or less semi? Or a manageable .22LR
B

[JohnKSa]

From the other facts posted:
"< 7 FEET 68 (48.9%) 71 (51.1%) 139 (47%) 52 (82.5%)"
At 7 feet or less, the chances of hits go up to 50%.
at 7 to 15 feet it drops to the 30% you suggest.Where did you get these numbers?

[Prosser]

Link from post #13:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8121799&postcount=1

rwilson37643
Member


Join Date: May 27, 2011
Location: Elizabethton TN
Posts: 62

civilian shooting stats
I acquired some interesting information from a friend who works for a states Attorney General’s office. They have tracked shots fired by CCW holders in the state in self defense, criminal acts, and negligence. Of course this data only includes those incidents reported to police, but it is still very interesting data. In the time this state has been issuing permits in the current manner permit holders have only fired 322 shots. Only 16 of these have been criminal in nature, some of these were in my opinion, negligence, but did result in criminal charges or were acts of suicide. 8 shots have been negligent without criminal charges, most of these occurred on a gun range or in the home. The remaining 296 shots were fired in self defense. The following table shows the range and hit or miss of these 296 shots:
Range # of hits # of Misses Total # of shootings
< 7 FEET 68 (48.9%) 71 (51.1%) 139 (47%) 52 (82.5%)
7 – 15 FEET 31 (32%) 66 (68%) 97 (32.8%) 43 (68.25%)
15 – 30 FEET 9 (24.3%) 28 (75.7%) 37 (12.5%) 12 (19%)
30 – 75 FEET 4 (20%) 16 (80%) 20 (6.76%) 6 (9.5%)
> 75 FEET 1 (33%) 2 (66%) 3 (1%) 1 (1.6%)
TOTAL 113 (38.2%) 183 (61.8%) 296
Some shootings represented in more than 1 range

• Total # of self defense shootings – 63
• Average shots fired by CCW holder – 4.7
• # of shootings with only one bad guy – 16 (25.4%)
• # of shootings with 2 bad guys – 34 (54%)
• # of shootings with 3 bad guys – 12 (19%)
• # of shootings with 4 or more bad guys – 1 (1.6%)
• # in which the bad guy was moving while being shot at – 63 (100%)
• # in which the CCW holder reported at least some movement while firing – 45 (88.9%)
• # of SD shootings occurring at the CCW holders home – 9 (14.3%)
• # of SD shootings occurring at the CCW holders place of employment – 12 (19%)
• # remaining – 42 (66.7%)
• # occurring indoors – 4 (6.4%)
• # occurring outdoors – 59 (93.6%)
• # occurring in full light – 14 (22.2%)
• # occurring in full darkness – 0
• # occurring in dim light – 49 (77.78%)
• Statisticly this states CCW holders have a .017% chance of being involved in a shooting
• # of CCW holders shot, stabbed, or otherwise in need of serious medical attention – 18 (28.5%)
• # of CCW holders killed – 2 (3.17%)
Sorry about the ambiguity and not telling which state. This data has not been made public, and my friend is afraid of repercussions if it is traced back to him. and the table didn't paste so well oops

[JohnKSa]

Thanks, I missed that link.From the other facts posted:
"< 7 FEET 68 (48.9%) 71 (51.1%) 139 (47%) 52 (82.5%)"
At 7 feet or less, the chances of hits go up to 50%.
at 7 to 15 feet it drops to the 30% you suggest.The plots in the OP allow a person to run the numbers for any hit rate probabilty from 10% to 90%.

Ok, so inside 7 feet (a little over 2 yards) we can raise the hit rate probability to 50%. That's actually worse than the 60% I assumed for the sake of argument in my earlier post.

So with a 50% hit rate with 6 shots and two assailants, each requiring at least 2 hits, the probability of success is about 35%.

Same scenario but with 7 shots and the probability of success is about 50%. A coin flip.

Go up to 8 shots and the probability of success is over 60%.

Of course, at 7 feet or less your opponent's hit rate will probably go up too... The probabilities I've calculated don't take that into account. From a practical standpoint, being extremely close to your opponent may hurt your chances more than it helps them by upping your hit rate.A lifetime of 1911 use is not going by the wayside for 2-3 extra rounds, when I'm already at 7 and 8.I'm not trying to get anyone to change anything.

It's information. There are any number of ways a person could assimilate it and put it to practical use. Or, it can simply be ignored.

The point is that the information allows a person to make a decision (to change, not to change, how much to change, what to change) based on something other than blind speculation. That's all.

Here's another source for the plots, for those who are having trouble viewing them.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5131003&postcount=10

[Trent]

Wow. The two data tables combined (OP and the CCW stats) are REALLY eye opening.

Conclusions:

A) You're MOST likely to be attacked by multiple assailants (74.6%)
B) You're MOST likely to be attacked outdoors (93.6%)
C) You're MOST likely to be attacked in dim light (77.78%)
D) Moving target (100%)

The low hit rates could be inferred to be from the shock of being in a confrontation (adrenaline) and low light. Most people DO NOT practice shooting in low light - safety reasons, etc. And damn few people practice at shooting A MOVING TARGET. And it's a safe bet that no one practices while under threat of death, so very few people actually know how they will react when presented with that particular circumstance. We have to assume since these people sent rounds downrange that "Fight" kicked in instead of "Flight".

This one is the most telling.

E) 28.5% of victims were seriously injured.

That's > 1/4 chance you're going to get hurt, and badly.

F) Most shootings occur < 15 feet.

Consider this:

Average sprinting speed of a non-world-class-athlete human is around 14MPH (20.5 fps.) Max is somewhere in the neighborhood of 23MPH.

That means in the predominantly close range (<15 feet) encounter distance, you have LESS THAN ONE SECOND to put a round on target before the bad guys close the distance. Emphasis added to "guys" because I wanted to illustrate that MORE than one attacker is the predominant case (@75%).

*I* have practiced an awful lot over my lifetime and *I* would not be able to draw and take down multiple assailants in under one second.

Those stats are very frightening, and I don't scare easily. What these stats mean is two guys with baseball bats, knives, or tire-irons have a BETTER chance at disabling/killing me than I have of doing the reverse, with a firearm, in the time window allotted for closing distance.

Lessons learned:

Situational awareness is key to keeping encounter distances far enough away to be able to react.

Training methods should reflect on the real world - multiple targets at varying distances and locations - front and back, side to side, etc. Some training should be done against moving targets (complicated to set up for the average Joe). Practice shooting in a stationary position in a stationary lane against a stationary target is fine for familiarizing yourself with a weapon, but to properly prepare for a real world scenario, it is insufficient training.

Combined with the OP's statistics (which it turns out are close enough to real world data to call "very good" data) - there is also a strong indication that you WILL need more than 6 shots to end a confrontation against determined assailants. (In fact, I don't believe I'd feel entirely comfortable unless I had DOUBLE that number, 12+).

There's plenty of data out there (along with real-world common sense) which indicates shot placement is much more important than diameter of bullet - with the number of good hits to center of mass being the deciding factor in increasing your chances significantly of incapacitation. (Each additional shot gives 100% more chance of inflicting a nervous system or major blood vessel hit, whereas a larger caliber may give you only 10-12% more chance - obviously depending on calibers being compared; 40vs.45, 9mm vs. 45, etc.)

Yeah. This has been a real eye opener!!

[Prosser]

The good news is bad guys generally have to close distance, and they usually do that by talking, and moving slower then full sprint speed.

Given the statistics, there are other factors in play here. I'm not even sure I WANT low flash powder in my SD rounds. At the range we are talking about having success flash and blast become assets. At such ranges you are going to have a hard time convincing me some of the larger rounds don't have an advantage, and if accuracy is so poor at PB range, then shot placement isn't going to be wonderful either.

It is a pretty grim scenario.

As for getting the adequate number of rounds on target:

Watch the Todd Jerett video I posted to. His record for a 3 man, 4 shots on each target is about 3.4 seconds, with a reload, under ideal conditions.
Funny part is if he did that at our range they would ban him for rapid fire violation.:banghead:


I would love to carry more then 10 rounds. If I do that, I'm breaking another law, not to mention CCW in my area is illegal, unless you are LEO, retired, or work for the DA or Sheriff.

Ideally I would carry a Mac 10 with a 32 round clip, a couple backup clips, in .45 ACP. It appears that would be effective given the 'average' situation described by the above statistics. At that range, you could put 7000 grains on target, in less then 2 seconds. Probably 20 years in weapons charges, both federal and state to do that here.

Situational awareness is the answer, but, in this world of cell phones, heads down, portable music players and head phones we are starting to look more and more like sheep to determined wolves.

Thank you for posting the stats. What they do do is make me rethink what I can change, my home defense stuff. New York reloads, and keep the guns handy.

[Skribs]

Prosser, very good breakdown. What this tells me is that I'm very likely to need to defend against 2-3 attackers. 1 is less likely, but still statistically significant (and, if I'm prepared for 2-3, I'm prepared for 1) and 4+ is an outlier.

It also shows that accuracy inside 7 feet is under 50%, 7-15 feet is around the 30% mark we've been discussing here, and 15-30 feet is less. I'm gonna round it to 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4 for my assumptions just to make it easier.

ETA: The number of assailants also makes a good argument for why to carry a gun in the first place. if 55% of the time you're going to be attacked, it's by 2 attackers, and another 20% it's 3 attackers, then martial arts skills are not likely to cut it - especially if you're using a more 1-on-1 style involving submission holds.

[X-Rap]

All this number crunching tells me to
Increase my close range shooting abilities while on the move
Pay better attention
Work on better carry methods that will allow me to maximize ammo capacity more of the time
When ever possible have another armed person along so we become a little less desirable targets

I believe that criminal trends are indeed changing both in the violence and number of assailants so to me it important to transition along with them.

[coalman]

I can't help but think that the 30% average hit ratio for LEO's is due to Glock triggers.
No. It's due to movement... by all parties. That plus chaos.

[Kleanbore]

^^^^
Yep! Add in stress and speed.

[Certaindeaf]

I've always figured that it's best to hit the target(s) and when you run out of ammo, you run out of ammo.

[JohnKSa]

I've always figured that it's best to hit the target(s) and when you run out of ammo, you run out of ammo.Sure. And the numbers give you a rough idea if you'll run out of ammo before you hit all the targets.

[Certaindeaf]

^
I understand numbers. and then you die

[Skribs]

I've always figured that it's best to hit the target(s) and when you run out of ammo, you run out of ammo.

Good strategy during the encounter. But what about before? You get to choose how much ammo you will have on you IF you need it.

There's two parts to self defense. One is being prepared to defend yourself. That includes training, mindset, and equipment selection. The other is the actual encounter.

[Certaindeaf]

..You get to choose how much ammo you will have on you IF you need it.

There's two parts to self defense. One is being prepared to defend yourself. That includes training, mindset, and equipment selection. The other is the actual encounter.
You get to? What video game are you playing? What I said was true.

[heeler]

This has been an interesting read.
Fwiw here in Houston yesterday we had at least two robberies of individuals where the perps were in mutiple numbers which as Rexster noted is increasingly happening in Houston.
A guy and his g/f were parked near the airport watching jets come and go and were approached by two guys asking for directions and then robbed of their vehicle,money,and rings,and another incident a guy had parked his car with numerous passengers inside his vehicle and a group of six pushed him to the ground,pulled a gun and robbed him.
That's damn bold because there was always the possibility that one or more of the people inside the good guys car might have actually had a gun with them.
But then again that area of Houston called Mid Town is one of those increasingly gentrified areas Rexster spoke of in our city that is chock full of young successful metrosexuals who have probably been brain washed of the evils of guns.
Yea right,whatever.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Certaindeaf: I understand numbers. and then you diethat makes no sense. Did you leave something out?

[Skribs]

You get to? What video game are you playing? What I said was true.

I'm talking real life. You get to choose what you carry, and handguns using normal self defense cartridges can hold anywhere from 2 to 20+1 in flush magazines. You also get to choose how many extra magazines/speedloaders/spare bullets you carry. So yes, if you have 5 shots, it's not because "it's just what I had on me", it's because you chose to carry a 5-shot pistol. If you have 17 rounds of 9mm on tap and another 2 magazines for backup, you have those because you chose to bring them.

[Certaindeaf]

I'm talking real life. You get to choose what you carry, and handguns using normal self defense cartridges can hold anywhere from 2 to 20+1 in flush magazines. You also get to choose how many extra magazines/speedloaders/spare bullets you carry. So yes, if you have 5 shots, it's not because "it's just what I had on me", it's because you chose to carry a 5-shot pistol. If you have 17 rounds of 9mm on tap and another 2 magazines for backup, you have those because you chose to bring them.
This is true. One day, one time, once upon a time, you'll run out of ammo. and then you might die. That's pretty much the way it goes. Like I said before..

[Skribs]

I never said you'd run out. I was saying that the idea of "when you run out of ammo, you run out of ammo" is something that occurs during the fight. How much ammo you bring to the table is something you choose before the fight, and that's what I think we're trying to ask here: how much ammo to bring to the table?

[1911 guy]

I can't address the whole topic for two reasons. First, it would take a month of Sundays and secondly I'm on some drugs from the doc and a little fuzzy right now. Pain has always hurt me, so I'm on pain-killers.

I remain convinced, based on my experience and the experiences of others I've had the opportunity to speak with, that misses happen for two common reasons. As in everything else in life, there are a thousand variables, but these, I believe, are the main two:

First, no training in hitting a moving target. Kinda like spending all your time on a heavy bag then expecting to step into the ring with an accomplished bantam-weight boxer. He'll eat you up, even if you're twice his size. You've got to move and be able to hit him while he's moving.

The second is transitioning from one target/assailant to the next. People often begin moving the handgun out of alignment well before completing the shot.

The second issue can be dealt with on a square range with two target frames and a dedication to making a fast and seamless transition, the first requires FOF training.

As for the "How much ammo?" question, my answer is similar to the "How much gun do I need?" question. As much as you will actually carry and not leave at home because it's a hassle. That's different for everyone. For me, it a 1911 and a few reloads. For some, it's a micro-revolver and a prayer.

[JohnKSa]

First, no training in hitting a moving target. Kinda like spending all your time on a heavy bag then expecting to step into the ring with an accomplished bantam-weight boxer. He'll eat you up, even if you're twice his size. You've got to move and be able to hit him while he's moving.

The second is transitioning from one target/assailant to the next. People often begin moving the handgun out of alignment well before completing the shot.I'd add a third, fourth and a fifth.

3. No practice trying to shoot while doing your level best to dodge the bullets being shot at you by the guy you're shooting at.

4. No practice shooting from behind cover or from awkward positions. See #3.

5. No practice shooting while injured or while using your free hand to grapple with someone.

There are probably others...

[Prosser]

John, thank you. You certainly have me rethinking my shooting, and my carry options. All of a sudden leaving those extra mags at home doesn't look like such a great idea...

[JohnKSa]

I'm glad it turned out to be thought-provoking that's really all I intended. Decisions about what to carry are going to vary widely for a lot of different reasons. The general idea was to provide some additional information that might be useful in that decision making process.

I have no illusions, nor intent that everyone who reads this changes to carrying a high-capacity pistol and several spare magazines. In fact, I'm not changing what I carry. But I do have a much better idea of what kind of capability my carry system provides me.

[Lawdawg45]

^^^^
Yep! Add in stress and speed.
Agree. My previous post referenced this, and it was the major contributing factor. The Parasympathetic response (fight or flight) when induced in practice by physical exertion or external stimulus (flash bang grenades) induced the same low hit rate, and even in testing 20 years ago they found by simply turning on the lights and siren, blood pressure elevated and the heart rate nearly doubled. The 8lb NYPD trigger may be an isolated factor, but most departments use a 4 or 5 lb trigger.

LD

[Prosser]

The other part of the equation is given the evidence presented, identifying a threat at distance prior to engagement is vital.

In my situation I'll have to plan on reloading, and getting the gun out first, and maybe having to shoot at a longer distance then I would like maybe vital to my survival. Keeping the threat at a distance where they can't engage physically would be my first desire.

To complete this puzzle we really need to know how many shots are fired by the bad guys, and how accurate they are. Not to mention what percentage of guns by bad guys are actually used, vs. brandished.

With multiple bad guys I do wonder if something like wide area pepper or bear spray might not be a great defensive tool to create distance?

http://1life1bearspray.com/

Range is 10 yards. It's hotter then personal pepper spray, by almost double,
so not much is going to effect a human.

It would add to the complication factor. Monday night I was in a situation
walking out of a gym in a not very good murder capitol of the U.S. at one year or another, with some guys that weren't real happy about a game ending call by my partner(guilt by association). The one advantage to pepper spray is I can have it in my hand, ready to go, and it's hard to see.
I admit the little key chain ones aren't my first choice, but the stuff does work at point blank range.

I have to carry a bag with me anyway, to carry all my stuff into the gym, since anything in a convertible is an invitation to a sliced top. No reason next week that can't include a large can of bear spray, and a better flashlight. I can't carry a gun anyway.

Can't figure out how one would run up and down a basketball court in a tight shirt and shorts carrying a pistol, without the carry setup showing through.

[JohnBiltz]

I think its important to remember that very very few gunfights get fought to a conclusion. Most end because participants realize they could get killed by the next bullet and start disengaging. I don't think I've ever read an account of anyone being found with a locked back slide.

[JohnBiltz]

I think the number one reason people shoot so poorly in these encounters is they have trained to shoot using sights and then they don't.

[jimbo555]

I agree John,and I think it's very important to have a handgun that naturally points for you and if it has good capacity that's a bonus!







Br

[Prosser]

I just got a link to Doubletaps' new .45 equalizer:

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=658
"45ACP+P 255gr. Equalizer™ 20rds. $33.75 $29.95
45ACP+P 255gr. Equalizer™ 20rds.
Click to enlarge

This is a powerful load for personal defense that delivers two shot on target with every pull of the trigger. Each shot is a doubletap on target! The two shots hit within an inch of each other at 7yds and within 2" of each other at 25yds! You get two distinct wound channels with each shot.
Caliber : .45ACP+P

Bullet : 255gr. Equalizer™ including a 185gr. JHP followed by a 70gr. HARDCAST bullet with a .450" meplat!
(Wound channel diameter of 0.939" with a bullet with a meplat diameter of .450", and a striking velocity of 835 fps.)
Ballistics : 835fps/ 395 ft./lbs. - 5" 1911
"
It would seem to me that such ammunitions' good point is you have just doubled your magazine capacity. BULLET COUNT IS DOUBLED. I also like the
increase from 230 grains to 255 grains for .45 ACP.

The downside is you are now shooting a slow 185 grain JHP which won't penetrate much, and a .380 or less wadcutter, but with a .450" meplat.
Plenty of damage but again penetration is a problem.

Thoughts?

[Skribs]

That 70-gr bullet is going to be heavier than a pellet of 00 by about 40%, and I think the slower JHP will have less expansion as opposed to less penetration. But I do agree, the wide size of that hardcast will probably impact penetration. Don't think I'd go with this over a conventional bullet. I think if you're going to want multiple projectiles for a carry weapon, the only real options are Judge or Governor.

[Prosser]

The good news would be if the HP doesn't expand, you are hitting your target twice, at the same time, with 25 grains more then most .45 ACP loads, and creating two big wound channels. The only question is how deep they are going to go. I can't help but think the cumulative impact would make an impression on the target.

[Prosser]

The more I think about this, the more I like it, just not for the calibers he's using it for.
He also makes a 9mm version:
http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=654

However, where this would really shine is the big cases that aren't used to capacity.

.44 Special, .44 Magnum, maybe the .357 Magnum.

The most I can shoot out of a scandium revolver is 125 grains at 1204 fps, or 147 at 1131 fps. I suspect you could up the bullets weight to 180 grains, and send two 90 grain full wadcutters at the target, at 1300 fps, out of a full sized gun.
Don't know what they would run out of a snubby, but a full charge of 4227 or H110 would also light the badguy up at point blank range out of a snub;-). The wound channel would be substantial due to the velocity and the full caliber meplat.
You would effectively double your ammunition capacity in your 5 shot, while giving up
a bit of bullet weight for dual projectiles.
Thoughts?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Prosser: The good news would be if the HP doesn't expand, you are hitting your target twice, .......or missing it twice.

[Prosser]

Goes without saying.

Certainly recoil would be increased as well, affecting accuracy. No free lunches with ballistics.

At least you've got twice as many projectiles, a major problem with snubs, and, this is one way to get around the states with 10 round magazine limits.

[Odd Job]

John, you may be interested to know what the distribution of skin breaches was in a sample of 150 live gunshot cases I processed in a hospital setting in South Africa in 2002.
Here is the overview:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/Tab1.jpg

There were two obvious anomalies (as pertains to this discussion). One was a self inflicted perforating injury and the other was a penetrating shotgun wound.
Then there were four anomalies from a medical and forensic point of view, where the appearances of the wounds and the information available to me was not conclusive in determining whether these were penetrating or perforating injuries (or GSWs at all).

If we err on the conservative side and assume those four cases represent the minimum number of hits possible, here is the breakdown of hits in all 150 cases:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/Tab2.jpg

If we assume the maximum number of hits possible, the numbers change only slightly:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/Tab3.jpg

It is important to remember:

1) The number of surface wounds does not necessarily equate to the number of hits.
2) A hit need not produce a penetrating or perforating wound. There were significant cases of tangential wounds (a graze injury) and one lucky blunt injury.
3) The modal injury is a single shot that perforates the individual. This does not necessarily mean there is no retained projectile or fragment thereof.
4) Most of these shootings do not involve LEOs (a suspect shot by an LEO would immediately be transferred to a private hospital if he remained at the scene of the shooting). This research took place at a trauma unit in a government hospital.
5) These patients were all alive on arrival at the hospital. I don't know how these data would change if a similar study was done at the district mortuary.

[Odd Job]

One other thing. In the cases above there will be a small error margin with regards to the number of hits, simply because a different number of hits can be involved when a person has one perforating injury and one penetrating injury. You can have three wounds, but anything from one to three hits:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/1shot.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/2shots.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/3shots.jpg

In the first two scenarios it may be difficult to work out what happened in the hospital setting, especially if clothing was not available or not worn. If there is an absence of projectile fragments or bone fracture clues, the appearances can be equivocal for the purposes of this discussion. It is not always clear whether the bullet which has passed through an extremity is also the bullet currently retained in the body elsewhere.
You often get unreliable information from the patient with regards to this problem (how many shots were fired)...

[Skribs]

Odd Job, just making sure I understand: you're saying that in your experience, the BG was hit once 75% of the time?

I'm also curious as to how many of these people were stopped after X hits. For example, was the person shot twice, then bashed in the skull of the victim who was defending himself, and then decided to turn himself in to the hospital? Or was he put down immediately and the intended victim called 911 to say "pick this fool up."

[Odd Job]

Hi Skribs, that's correct, the patient was hit once in 75% of all cases (possibly 77%).

I'm also curious as to how many of these people were stopped after X hits. For example, was the person shot twice, then bashed in the skull of the victim who was defending himself, and then decided to turn himself in to the hospital? Or was he put down immediately and the intended victim called 911 to say "pick this fool up."

That's much harder to comment on, in a study like this, because of ethics considerations. Patients had to agree to be research subjects: if they weren't keen I left them out.

I wasn't allowed to approach the police for background information or additional details when they investigated these shootings. In fact I was greatly restricted with what sort of questions I could ask the patient himself, the reason being that the ethics committee were concerned that questions not pertaining to the patient's medical history could contribute to increasing post traumatic stress. I was only allowed to ask whether there were intervening materials between the shooter and the patient.

Of course, if they volunteered information I could note it, but in general I would say the patient's account of what happened could not always be trusted. That's either because they honestly couldn't remember the details or they were distracted by pain, influenced by medication, worried about family members or their perception of what happened had been influenced by witnesses or first responders. There were several cases where I knew the patient was being deceptive (because the radiology didn't match his story) and there were at least two cases where the patient had interfered with the wounds before arriving at the hospital.
The majority of these patients arrived at the hospital via private transport, sometimes just being dumped at the door.

During the period I conducted this research we had 542 gunshot cases attending the hospital. That's in a four month period (and those numbers are down from the usual 150 cases a month because at that time the world summit on sustainable development was being held in Johannesburg and they had 15,000 extra police on the streets. Gunshots went down and stabs went up).
Between manpower limits (I worked alone with no external funding) and ethics considerations I could only get 150 cases. However the overall distribution of wounds matches my experience with other gunshot cases seen before 2002 when I worked permanent night duty as a radiographer in Johannesburg.
Conservatively I would say I have seen around 2000 gunshot cases where I had a role to play in the handling of the patient.

[heeler]

Wow,most interesting Odd Job.

[Prosser]

Nice reminder that Johannesburg is the murder capital of the world.

I notice you relocated.
God Bless you, and thank you for the information.

[JohnKSa]

Interesting data.

So we could look at it from several perspectives.

I'm making the unjustified assumption that each of these injuries was the result of a gunfight for the sake of the discussion.

About 80% of the gunfights ended with only one gunshot wound being sustained by the survivor.

About 20% of the gunfights resulted in multiple hits.

A person injured in a gunfight who survives to make it to the hospital has rarely been hit more than once.

Thanks for providing that information. It's going to take awhile before I can really understand exactly what it's telling us.

[Skribs]

I'm not trying to say anything against your research, Odd Job, because it looks like you did put a lot of work into it, but I just don't see how it applies here. The only thing I could see it working with is in looking at the number of rounds needed to stop the BG, but as we do not have the results of people who were killed or even whether or not the wounded/killed individual was immediately stopped by the bullet, there isn't anything to apply here.

Like I said, interesting numbers and breakdown, but without the inclusion of those killed or more information on the encounter, I don't know how much we can take away from this.

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

I prefer my AR-15 with numerous rounds, as I want to be able to shoot through things like furniture and partition walls.

If more than one attacker were to come storming in, resulting in me fearing for my life, or the life/lives of those with me, I am going to fight respectively!

[Prosser]

I've been thinking about the data provided. One hopeful note is if shot once, a bunch of people decided retreat was better then valor, bad guys or good.

Perhaps there is hope in that. It does undermine the idea that you need two hits to persuade someone to end the fight.

You have 150 that participated in a gun fight, one way or another, and 150 survived, leaving the fight, and made it to a hospital/medical facility.

[Skribs]

Not knowing the situation or the other factors, we can't assume people stopped fighting after one hit.

*It is possible they were hit once as the result of a drive-by or a targetted attack where the attacker only got one hit. In this case, it wasn't a fight, they were the victim.
*You also don't know how many people died from one hit or ran off before a shot was fired. Not knowing the number of people scared off and not knowing the results of fatal shootings doesn't give us much to compare to.
*You also don't know they retreated - they could have taken one hit and then bludgeoned the shooter. All you know is they took one hit and lived.

Not related to the data, but I don't go with low recoil weapons to give myself time to evaluate between shots. I go with low recoil weapons to give myself time to evaluate between salvos.

[CDW4ME]

Yesterday, I used a shot timer to conduct a speed & accuracy test of 4 different Glock pistols: 29SF, 30SF, 27, 26.
All of those ^ have a NY trigger (8#)
The 2nd shot times were not all that different, but consistent accuracy was.
I put a 6" circle on a larger target placed 6 yards (18 feet) away.
My goal is to keep all shots on the 6" circle, with the least amount of time from 1st - 2nd shot.
The 29 SF magazines had a Pearce +0 baseplate with room for pinky, the 30 SF had flush fitting magazines; I can't stand the pinky pinch from the 10 rounders.
Both the 26 & 27 had Pearce +0 baseplates with pinky rest.
The extra recoil generated by the 10mm and 40 S&W over 45 and 9mm rounds showed its self in this drill; the 29 and 27 misses were further out of the circle and the overall group measurement including those misses was larger; the 30 and 26 kept any misses very close to the 6" circle.
Basically, I shot the 30 and 26 insignificantly faster, but noticeably more accurate for 8 timed pairs (16 rounds) each.
I'm not quick at anything and I don't use a timer often (disclaimers), that being said, the average shot times (using full power HP ammunition) were .33 sec for the 30 SF (flush fitting magazine) and .25 sec for the 26 (pinky rest).
The main thing I noticed was that the misses with the 30 & 26 only missed that 6" circle by about an inch, would still be a pretty good hit; not so for the other two, they each had a couple of shots land several inches away.
I had been packing the 29 and 27 due to their greater power and I knew I was about as quick with them; but, despite the power advantage and near equal speed, accuracy can't be ignored.
I'm gonna start carrying the 30 and 26.
I'm really not warm & fuzzy about packing a 9mm but it was the fastest & most accurate and took noticeably less effort to keep the front sight on target.
Thanks timer???

Folks may want to conduct a similar test for themself to see what they really do best with.

[Prosser]

Would help if we knew what ammo you are using in the gun.

Recoil is NOT caliber dependent. It's bullet and powder weight.

Also I'm wondering if the grip diameter is affecting your accuracy as well.

Your ammunition selection is what is effecting your time and accuracy, NOT caliber.

I would you suggest you take your specific situation, and your observations, and apply them to YOUR situation. I can't help but think that with a variety of ammo selections you can find loads that work well for what you are doing with your guns, yet work better then the current loads you have.

It is possible for ammo companies to pick powders that are economical
and profit producing for them, that provide a really poor value to the customer, causing very hard recoil, and sometimes no velocity. Remington did this with .44 Special ammunition a long time ago.

My reloading experience was the 9MM was VERY hard to get a consistent load that was accurate with the number of guns I was loading for.
Sig liked a very heavy bullet and a max load. Same load a Browning High
Power didn't like. etc.

I have a hard time believing that 10MM ammo from Double Tap, or Buffalobore wouldn't combine accuracy with a bullet powder combination you feel comfortable with.

I notice people complain about .40 recoil, in guns similar in size to the 9mm.
If that's the case, get a lighter bullet load, or try different light bullet loads.

I just don't see 2-4 grains of powder increasing recoil tremendously, as people ascribe to the .40.

More likely poor powder selection by the loader, or a heavier bullet are the cause.

My Glock 30 experience was it was not very accurate at all with the junk
ammunition the range insisted you shoot through their gun.
230 grain Magtech, IIRC.

[Prosser]

10MM loads and recoil from doubletap:
http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_25&products_id=45&osCsid=3rbr48uo7mnhe70angccsk4pq7
135 grain HP/1600 fps
Recoil Energy of 9 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 17 fps.

Caliber : 10mm
Bullet : 165gr Remington Brass Jacketed Hollow Point
Ballistics : 1400fps/ 718ft./lbs. - 5.0" bbl
1175fps / 506 ft lbs 100yds 5.0" bbl
Glock 29 - 1340fps Muzzle
Recoil Energy of 9 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 17 fps.Caliber

10mm
Bullet : 150gr. Nosler Jacketed Hollow Point.
Ballistics : 1475fps / 725 ft.lbs. - Glock 20
1400fps Glock 29
Recoil Energy of 8 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 16 fps.

Caliber : 10mm
Bullet : 200gr Nosler JHP
Ballistics : 1250fps / 694ft lbs. muzzle - 5"bbl
1083fps / 521 ft lbs 100yds 5"bbl
Glock 29 - 1195fps Muzzle
Recoil Energy of 10 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 18 fps.

Two rounds for one:
10mm 230gr. Equalizer™ Double Ammunition 50rds. $52.23
10mm 230gr. Equalizer™ Double Ammunition 50rds.
Click to enlarge

Double Ammunition.

Caliber : 10mm

Bullet : 230gr. two projectiles: 135gr. JHP and 95gr. lead ball

Ballistics : 1040fps/ 553 ft./lbs. - Glock 20
Glock 29 - 1000fps
Recoil Energy of 9 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 17 fps.

Caliber : .40 S&W
Bullet : Nosler JHP
Ballistics : 135gr. @ 1375fps / 567 ft/lbs- Glock 23 (4.0"bbl)
Recoil Energy of 6 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 14 fps.


Caliber : .40 S&W
Bullet : 150gr. Nosler JHP
Ballistics : 150gr. @ 1275fps / 542 ft/lbs- Glock 23 (4.0"bbl)
Recoil Energy of 7 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 15 fps.

Caliber : .40 S&W
Bullet : 180gr Nosler JHP
Ballistics : 180gr. @ 1100fps / 484 ft/lbs- Glock 23 (4.0"bbl)
Recoil Energy of 7 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 15 fps.

Caliber : .40 S&W
Bullet : 200gr Nosler JHP
Ballistics : 200gr. @ 1050fps / 490 ft/lbs- Glock 23 (4.0"bbl)
Recoil Energy of 7 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 15 fps.

Caliber : .45ACP
Bullet : 185gr. Nosler JHP
Ballistics : 1200fps - 592 ft./lbs. - 5" 1911
Recoil Energy of 9 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 17 fps.

Caliber : .45ACP
Bullet : 230gr. Brass Jacketed JHP made by Remington
Ballistics : 1010fps/ 521 ft./lbs. - 5" 1911
Recoil Energy of 10 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 18 fps.

Caliber : 9mm
Bullet : 80gr Barnes TAC-XP Lead Free
Ballistics : 80gr @ 1560fps / 433ft. lbs. from a G17.
Ruger SR9C 3.5" velocity - 1400fps.
Recoil Energy of 3 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 10 fps.

Caliber : 9mm+P
Bullet : JHP Made by Remington
Ballistics : 124gr @ 1310fps / 473ft. lbs. from a G17.
124 @ 1295fps / 462 ft. lbs. from a G19
Recoil Energy of 5 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 13 fps.

Caliber : 9mm+P
Bullet :147gr Winchester® JHP
Ballistics : 147gr @ 1125fps / 410ft. lbs. from a G17.
Glock 19 velocity - 1080fps.
Glock 26 velocity - 1025fps.
Recoil Energy of 4 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 12 fps.

Average 10MM recoil: 9 ft-lbs
Average .40 recoil: 7 ft-lbs
Average .45 ACP: 9.5 ft-lbs
Average 9MM: 4 ft-lbs

With full power ammunition your accuracy results indicate that it's load related, or gun related. The .45 you shoot well is the hardest kicking of all.

The 9MM should be easy to shoot well. It's considerably less recoil then the other rounds.

I like doing this stuff. It's fun to find out how close the service calibers really are, including the 'awesome' recoiling 10MM. :rolleyes:

It looks like the guns you shoot the best are most likely the ones you have more trigger time on.

[JohnKSa]

Recoil is NOT caliber dependent. It's bullet and powder weight.Well, to be perfectly accurate it's proportional to the product of the ejecta weight (bullet plus gases that exit the muzzle) and the muzzle velocity of the ejecta and is inversely proportional to the weight of the firearm.It's fun to find out how close the service calibers really are...In more ways than one...

[Prosser]

Something to consider:
What does your gun weigh full, and what does it weigh on the last round?

When the weight of the gun gets under 2 pounds, most Glocks, and you put in a 15=17 round magazine, there is going to be a considerable weight difference between the guns first round and it's last. This weight change is going to effect shot placement and recoil as the gun becomes lighter.

I would draw this point out further, but in my current nanny state, I can't get over 10 rounds in a handgun, so the point is more or less moot.

[CDW4ME]

Would help if we knew what ammo you are using in the gun.

Recoil is NOT caliber dependent. It's bullet and powder weight.

Also I'm wondering if the grip diameter is affecting your accuracy as well.

Your ammunition selection is what is effecting your time and accuracy, NOT caliber.



Ammo for the 10mm, 45, and 9mm was all my XTP handloads (constructed with the greatest of care :)) which approximately match the advertised velocity for factory Hornady ammunition.
The 40 S&W was 8 rounds of the relatively mild Golden Saber 165 gr. and 8 rounds of Ranger T 165.

5 shot chrono averages for each ammunition:
10mm 155 gr. XTP @ 1,278 fps / 562# KE (PF 198)
45 acp 185 gr. XTP @ 970 fps / 387# KE (PF 179)*

40 S&W 165 Ranger T @ 1,116 fps/ 456# KE (PF 184)
40 S&W 165 GS @ 1,018 fps / 380# KE (PF 168)
9mm 115 gr. XTP @ 1,157 fps / 342# KE (PF 133)*

I listed the power factor (PF) calculation for each load as an objective way to compare felt recoil.
PF = bullet weight x bullet speed / 1,000
It's not surprising that the two pistols with lower* calculated PF numbers were faster in 1st - 2nd shot time.
The grip on the 26/27 is exactly the same.
The 27 averaged .26 in that drill, hardly any difference (like I said) but the misses were much further from the 6'' circle.
The 30 (45) was quicker & more accurate than the 29 (10mm) despite not having a place for my pinky. I have Pearce +0 baseplates on the 29 magazines and like them; the 45 has more of a gap between the frame & magazine base and it pinches my pinky regardless of magazine base (I even sanded the offending area of the magazine base) so I will only use the flush fitting 9 round magazines in it.

[Prosser]

Did you determine the bench accuracy of each gun with each load, prior to this event?

HMMM. Accuracy is the issue, even though the 26 is 25% faster on splits:confused:

45 acp 185 gr. XTP @ 970 fps / 387# KE (PF 179)*

WOW! You shoot that well. Why don't you just load a FBI light load in both the 10MM and .40, and carry any of those three, and leave the 26 at home?

The specs for the FBI light are 180 grains at about 980 fps, nearly identical to your favorite .45 load.

It looks to me that your .40 and 10MM loads are suffering from top of the reloading scale approach to reloading. There are PLENTY of 22-29k loads that give you 1030-1254 fps with .45 ACP like pressures. Somehow I would think a 155 grain XTP at 1100 fps would be a better choice then a 115 grain XTP at 1,100 fps, in 9mm.

My experience with the .40 was a glock 35 race gun. The custom loads felt like a .22lr, and it was VERY accurate. Controlled fire one hole, double taps touching at 7 yards. It did have about a 3 pound trigger pull on it.

I think he was using 155 grain wadcutters at 950 fps, using 231 or maybe a bit faster using HS-6.

I suspect if you keep the pressure on your 10MM and .40 loads in the 20-30k range you will get better accuracy, pick a fast powder that is accurate for your short barreled guns, and not give up any accuracy.

You can also equal the .45 ACP in PF factor, using FBI type loads in the 10MM and .40. Hornady offers a .40 180 grain XTP JHP, and do a factory load in .40 with it as well. 950 fps.

It would seem to make more sense to start with the same bullet weight you shoot well in the .45 ACP and make up equal loadings in the 10MM and the .40. The 10MM will do 980 with near minimum loads and minimum pressure, 22-25k. The .40 will too. Using Universal, or HS-6 the powder charge is within 20% of your 9MM loads.

There simply isn't any reason to carry a 9MM when you can custom load your .40 and 10MM to a more effective combination with low pressure.

It looks like a case of magnum hotrodding. WHY do people have to start at the top of the reloading charts? I suspect you are paying the premium in recoil in your 10mm and .40 loadings, due to loading near .44 magnum pressures.

The only constant I can see in your information that provides a clue for the accuracy issue is you shoot cartridges and loads well that are lower pressure, 20k in .45 ACP and 30k or lower in 9MM.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you use the same weight bullet,
less powder, and just a little more pressure, like 22-25K in .40 and 10MM,
you'll get recoil similar to the guns you shoot well.

And do something about that stupid 8 pound glock trigger pull...;)

The only Glock I ever enjoyed shooting:
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/RACE%20GLOCK/Glock35racegun.jpg

If you must shoot up those 155 grain XTP's in the .40, you might consider loading
155 GR. HDY XTP Hodgdon Longshot .400" 1.125" 7.5 1129 24,900 PSI
155 GR. HDY XTP IMR SR 4756 .400" 1.125" 7.9 1139 25,900 PSI

Or in 10MM:
155 GR. HDY XTP Hodgdon HS-6 .400" 1.260" 8.8 1095 22,400 PSI
155 GR. HDY XTP Winchester AutoComp .400" 1.250" 8.0 1254 29,000 PSI
155 GR. HDY XTP Hodgdon Universal .400" 1.260" 6.5 1135 22,600 PSI

Still plenty of power, but without the high pressure.

Similar loads around for the 165's.

[Kleanbore]

Gettin' off track here--if you want to compare recoil, energy, and accuracy stats, start another thread.

[Kleanbore]

In my opinion, this has been one of the most thought provoking threads I have ever seen here. One can vary the assumptions or do the math oneself, but the numbers really do cause one who has been relying on a pocket firearm for primary carry to rethink one's risk management assumptions. Some of our preconceived notions may not withstand the challenge.

John is to be commended for putting in the effort and sharing it with us. I have this one bookmarked.

[Prosser]

I agree. Excellent thread.
Having gone through a multiple person attack, one person that I know had a gun, it is an excellent bit of work, and thought provoking.

Certainly changed the way I approach carry.

I just got done reading the entire thread again. What it does do is make you reconsider what are important factors in a carry gun-combination.

I just pulled myself out of ****, into a free state. Now you have the consideration raised above: 9MM? Does the .40 give you enough added ballistics to justify a couple less rounds?
.45 ACP? With current single stack magazines it gives away 2-3 rounds to the 9mm and .40.

Makes me wish for a double stack standard .45 ACP, in polymer.

A point raised by CDW4ME:
At what point do you sacrifice accuracy with your ammunition choice, carry gun choice, for power, and how does that effect, if it does, capacity?
How do you determine what is acceptable accuracy in a situation you can't practice for, or is difficult to do so?

We also have some evidence here that a single shot taken might be enough to persuade 75% of the people involved to exit the gun fight early.

This thread raises many excellent questions.

P

[CDW4ME]

Prosser:
I stated that the 40 S&W was factory ammo.
I conducted the drill with ammo that I would use in the pistols.
In each case the bullet weight is one of the lighter choices for the caliber.
I like the "stupid" 8# NY trigger, installed it myself; prevents me from popping off a 2nd shot when I don't want to.

Accuracy: Please understand that this shooting was as quick as I can stay on a 6'' circle at about 18 feet or 6 yards. The 10mm and 40 S&W misses don't reflect the inherent accuracy of the pistol or ammo, rather it's more reflective of the challenge of keeping a harder kicking round on target when shooting at the limit of my ability. The 45 had a couple of misses that were only about 1'' from the circle and the 9mm only had one; whereas the 40 and 10mm each had a couple of shots that were several inches away. Those shots reflect the challenge of attampting to keep the muzzle of a harder kicking round on target. If I shot one round per second there would be no difference in accuracy because every round from every pistol would hit the 6'' circle every time.

I have conducted this test before; last summer it was the same thing, except it was G19 vs G23. The 19 easily won the drill due to the same reason the 26 did, less recoil; although the G19 allowed me to get those 1st - 2nd average shot times down to .19 sec.

I typically carry appendix IWB which rules out the 19/23 size pistols as the muzzle digs intolerably into my grion. Apparently a little is a lot, because the 29/30 which are only slightly shorter don't bother me.

The thread is about hit rate, that's why I posted the results of my test.
If my attackers would allow me the luxury of 1 second per shot (4 rounds in four seconds) I could carry the hardest kicking ammo and still be very accurate.
I figure that if I was attacked by two (or more) people I would be attempting to make good hits as quick as possible, just like my little drill.

[Patocazador]

I'm sorry, but I didn't read the entire original post because it was way too long and complicated. Let me make a couple of observations.

1. There is absolutely no way to accurately predict what the reaction of any particular individual will be to a gunshot wound. If you research gunfights this is something that jumps out at you. Big, strong men have been felled and incapacitated by a minor wound to the arm while slightly build individuals have absorbed numerous hits from large caliber weapons with no apparent immediate effect. Trying to speculate how many rounds will be needed to "stop" an attacker is a useless exercise. Too many variable including drug use which skews any attempt at scientific predictions.

2. Civilians coming under gang attack are very rare. Average citizens very rarely need to worry about engaging multiple opponents. The typical criminal attack will involve a single perpetrator, maybe two. Not that multiple person attacks never happen, but they are few and far between.

When a gang does attack, they are cowards. If they were courageous they wouldn't feel the need to operate as a group. I suspect that in 99.9% of such cases a single gunshot, Hell, simply displaying a weapon will scatter the attackers. The only way you will shoot more than one or two gang members is if you can hit them in the back as they run (which is a bad idea from a legal standpoint).
Point #3 is true! Once you demonstrate that you have the means to defend yourself AND turn the tables on them, the threat diminishes drastically.
Shoot the leader and it will be hard to find a second target due to all the dust the others made by running away.

[Shadow 7D]

depends...
but it's entirely likely that you will find yourself wrong
gang members are conditioned to violence
trained packs will ATTACK at the sight of a gun, as it's the way the MOST of them survive, running, letting one die or getting shot in the back... just saying, don't count on hardened criminals running.

[Kleanbore]

Shoot the leader and it will be hard to find a second target due to all the dust the others made by running away.I'm beginning to think that one is stored with "a hit in the hand with a .45 will knock him down."

One hears it very often, but never with substantiation.

[Shadow 7D]

quite the opposite, both through physics AND experimentation and empirical evidence have all proven that the bullet lacks adequate force to know a person down.

[jad0110]

Quote:
Shoot the leader and it will be hard to find a second target due to all the dust the others made by running away.

I'm beginning to think that one is stored with "a hit in the hand with a .45 will knock him down."

One hears it very often, but never with substantiation.

Shooting the leader first may or may not work, granted (additionally, you have to rapidly figure out who the leader is), but is there a better option?

[JohnKSa]

There may be. Not every situation can be or should be solved with a gun. Of course, if you have no choice, then you do what you can.

[jad0110]

There may be. Not every situation can be or should be solved with a gun. Of course, if you have no choice, then you do what you can.

Agreed. God forbid if I ever find myself in trouble, I hope I at least have other alternatives.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by jad0110: Shooting the leader first may or may not work, granted (additionally, you have to rapidly figure out who the leader is), but is there a better option?Yes.

It is to first shoot the one who presents the most immediate danger. That, too, may require some very rapid evaluation and a quick decision.

If the threat involves edged weapons, it would be either the closest or the fastest moving. If it is an armed attack, it might be the guy with the shotgun, it it's not the guy who presented his weapon first. You would have to decide. But trying to identify and assess a command hierarchy would be a waste of very valuable time.

Remember, we are discussing multiple assailants in calculations limited to two, not a mob.

But if there are three, the principle remains the same: prioritized based on danger.

[PabloJ]

Most out there would have better chance of taking the option of being "beaten in" into the group.

[Prosser]

The good news for me was that only one of the three had a gun. Or at least only one was pulled out. The other two appeared unarmed.

The attack was a revenge attack for my apparent friendship with a bowling
alley manager, who had just kicked the three out for being drunk and probably on drugs. Irony was I was nice to the guy only to get him to give us free bowling we were entitled to from the terms of our league agreement.

He was a general jerk to everyone.

Another note: Have better friends with guts. I was bowling with two guys that saw the three guys go into the bathroom, and did nothing. Both admitted later that they knew I was going to get "jacked".

It might also have had a lot to do with race, since at the time, IIRC the only caucasian appearing people in the alley were myself and the bowling manager.

All that said, I would have had a very good chance of taking out the guy that pulled the gun if I had been armed. The advantage at that range is that
you can strike anywhere and your chances of hitting are about 100%, as long as you take advantage of vertical movement to not present an easy target. If a gun had been on the end of my arm it would not have required
aiming. Find target, push and pull trigger at the same time.

Since these guys ran off when I started yelling and moving, I doubt they would have been around after a gunshot.

[Kleanbore]

I've been reading about firearms for just under six decades, and I've been shooting them for five and a half. I have availed myself of some high performance defensive pistol shooting. In an earlier life, I wrote risk management procedures for a major company.

I knew that a single shot from a handgun was unlikely to stop a single assailant. I knew that hitting under duress was an uncertain proposition. I was aware that in the event of a mugging, it was by no means unlikely that more than one assailant would be involved.

But I had never really put it all together . For me, that required doing the math. John did that for us.

Wow. Today the J-frame no longer serves as a primary carry weapon. In its place rides either my M&P 9c or a new Ruger SR9c, which I just acquired as a result of this thread.

[Owen Sparks]

People generally scatter like chickens as soon as you start shooting. The exception would be a highly diciplined military unit or a SWAT team who will put the mission above their own personal safety. No common criminal will lay down his life so that his surviving buddies can walk off with your big screen TV.

[MrRob]

This has been a very informative thread, with many well informed opinions.

What about a 5 shot J frame revolver supplemented by a laser/ crimson trace type system?

Obviously its probably hard to collect statistics on that, but Id be interested in seeing whether most people think the CT/laser make a substantial/real world difference in hits on multiple targets??


Also, I like the thoughts on upgrading to the M&P9c, more than twice the firepower in one load. But for me the J frame conceals so much easier, it just seems like Im more likely to carry it over a mid-compact sized semi. Should "probability of carry" be considered as a factor as well, or is that too statistically impossible to isolate and determine?

Just interested in seeing if anyone thinks the laser makes a difference compared to purely more capacity?

[X-Rap]

I just started a thread on lasers and in general I think their usefulness is very specialized, in my case I would say the need for a very precise shot in a crowd where the gunman was confident or didn't care if they were shot (active shooter). In general I support the idea of a defensive weapon with a higher capacity simply because one never knows the number of assailants and IMO criminals in some cases are evolving into pack animals and I don't want to get stuck with 5 rounds when statistics say that is not enough for even 2.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Owen Sparks: People generally scatter like chickens as soon as you start shooting. The exception would be a highly diciplined military unit or a SWAT team who will put the mission above their own personal safety. No common criminal will lay down his life so that his surviving buddies can walk off with your big screen TV.

That has already been discussed, and there are other exceptions. See this (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8253572&postcount=46).

[Skribs]

Mr Rob, a laser requires it to be pointed on target for you to use it as a sighting system. If it is off target, especially outside, then it's going to be a lot harder to see where you're off.

[holdencm9]

I love probability and statistics.

[Prosser]

Considering 70% of the attacks were/are in low light conditions, I suspect a laser might be a good idea.

[jimbo555]

What this thread taught me is if you like jframes then carry 2.High or low capacity aside any handgun can fail and sometimes it happens at the worst time,so a backup is what I carry!

[allaroundhunter]

This has been a very informative thread, with many well informed opinions.

What about a 5 shot J frame revolver supplemented by a laser/ crimson trace type system?

Obviously its probably hard to collect statistics on that, but Id be interested in seeing whether most people think the CT/laser make a substantial/real world difference in hits on multiple targets??

Bottom line, it's still only 5 shots. To me, no where near enough. That red dot might make aiming without sights slightly easier, but you will not see a significant increase in hit percentage. I want to have the ability to fire at least 5 shots at each assailant, and I prepare for at least two assailants.

[JohnKSa]

I think that anything that improves your hit rate helps, but as I pointed out earlier in the thread, even very high hit rates won't help if you don't have enough shots available to make the necessary number of hits. Similarly, even a lot of rounds won't do much good if you can't shoot well enough and/or fast enough to make them count.

[Prosser]

Gelatin penetration just got an attitude adjustment.



They do have a .45 Colt load that goes right through the block, 250-260 grains hardcast, but at about 800 fps.

I've always thought 250-275 grains would be plenty to get to 18" using a HP.
I was WRONG:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/500SWSpecial.htm
"500S&W Special
Summary Table
Cor-Bon
275gr DPX
(HT500S275)
1237 fps
14.8 " gel
0.628
8.4
(1)
Northwest Custom Projectile
350gr Manstopper
1293 fps
16.1 " gel
0.509

Using the Barnes XPB the guys are getting about 1500 fps with the 275 grain bullet out of the .500JRH, in a 2-3" barrel, using 4227.
Over-penetration does not appear to be an issue:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/500SWMagnum.htm

Everytime you think you have an answer it doesn't play out...

Looks like I was about right. The XPB was shot at 3 different velocities. 1200 fps gave about 14", 1600 fps 18", and 2000 around 19".

Seems you have to open up the PDF file to get the facts in writing, and, it appears the stuff on the gello shoot differs from the stuff stated on the video.
Recoil in a 3.2 pound gun feels easy, but, that's compared to heavier bullet loads:
Recoil Energy of 25 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 23 fps.
At least it isn't coming back very fast, more like a push...