That is a very good question indeed, and in reality it applies to everyone.
The answer, of course, is that know one knows, or ever will. The best we can do is try to define a reasonably probable best case.
How Many Rounds to Carry
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
- Status
The answer, of course, is that know one knows, or ever will. The best we can do is try to define a reasonably probable best case.
I di not ay that I would dismiss statistical information (if there were such information in meaningful resolution and amounts).
But I would not rely on averages for much of anything, unless I were a large concern selling insurance or lending money.
Do you agree with that, or not? I cannot tell.
Well, if you have someone who has only ever shot at a range or in staged scenarios (where there is no possibility of anyone shooting back) how do they develop that "informed judgment"? The charts provide useful information, but are only of any use if someone can determine the parameters needed to find the points on the "X" and "Y" axis necessary to get a result from the chart.
THAT was my original question and it still remains unanswered.
Someone who can hit the target 100% of the time at the range but has never had military training, has never had police training, has never had realistic civilian simulation, cannot realistically assume that they would have 100% "hit rate probability", so then how do they exercise "informed judgment" to translate their range performance into how they would realistically perform in a self-defense situation?
AGAIN, the question remains unanswered.
Although I never said that you billed this as a "gunfight simulator", your own post on TheFiringLine.com does discuss the use of these charts in relation to a gunfight;
"Be reasonable when you choose your hit rates if you expect to get reasonable results. There may be some of us who could really be expected to hit 80 or 90% of our shots during a gunfight,..." See https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=589332
Let me be clear, I am not taking exception with the charts. What I am asking is how one should begin to quantify a realistic "hit rate probability" - a metric needed to use the charts - if their only experience has been range time and staged scenarios.
I can meet my own accuracy standard between 90% and 100% of the time when I'm at the range. I also know, from experience, that my "hit rate probability" drops significantly when there is someone shooting back (or at least someone who has the ability to shoot back) and what I am asking is how I should make the reduction you yourself says need to be made.
I have yet to get an answer to that question - a question you yourself cautioned the user of chart they needed to be cognizant of.
"In relation to a gunfight" is very general.
The plots provide information that provides some context for selecting a carry capacity. Carry capacity is about self-defense and self-defense when in the context of firearms is typically related to gunfights. So yes. They can be viewed as providing general information that is related to gunfights.
Here's an example of some other information related to gunfights. Gunfights often take place inside 21 feet. Is that going to predict how a specific gunfight goes down? Does it say anything about the outcome at all? Does it simulate anything? No, no and no.
Well, yes and no, but mostly no.
For example, if a "scenario" isn't workable (has a very low probability of success) even with a hit rate probability of 90%, you also know it's not going to be workable with any lower hit rate probability. It would be reasonable to assume that it is not a workable scenario at all, even without knowing anything about hit rate probabilities other than that 90% is not a likely hit rate in a gunfight.
If you want to know exactly what the best case probability is for a given hit rate/capacity/# of shots required then it is true you would want to input a precise hit rate. Then you would precisely know the probabilities for that combination of variables. Which would precisely give you the best case probability that a person saddled with those limitations and requirements could succeed although they could certainly (and in fact are likely to) do worse.
I wouldn't recommend using the graphs with the idea that they will give an exact outcome for a specific scenario. First of all they don't provide outcomes, they provide probabilities. Second, the value of the information provided is more general than specific in nature. The point is to allow the user to get a feel for how the three input variables will affect the chances of the desired outcome where the desired outcome is making the specified number of hits.
I'm going to recommend that you not use these plots as a resource. If you believe that knowing a precise hit rate probability is critical to using the graphs then you are missing the point of the graphs and it's very likely you will misinterpret the results.
Last edited:
It will take more than target shooting, but the more one can do, the better one can get an idea of what the best case might be.
As stated in Post #1, defensive shooting differs greatly from practicing at the square range; targets moving fast from unexpected directions, the element of surprise, panic and stress, the need to draw and shoot rapidly, and other factors will surely make hitting the assailants much more difficult than what we see in target practice.
Even if someone has used a firearm when there was a possibility of someone shooting back, what would that tell us, with one successful encounter with a hundred unmeasurable and/or unrecorded variables?
No one could ever "find the points", but they can reasonably assess the probable ranges.
And like a bridge designer, they may add a safety factor.
That is the essence of designing and deciding upon risk mitigation strategies.
Shooting at a target at a fixed distance in front of you after having planned to so so certainly has its limitations.
Add movement and the stress of time in a competition environment, and you will be somewhat better equipped. But you are still trying to hit a known target.
Take the I.C.E. PDN Combat Focus Shooting course, and you factor in the elements of surprise and of variations in distance and direction.
For moving targets, and to add more variables such as bystanders and shoot/no-shoot decisions, you will need FoF scenarios and simulation in an inter-alive laser facility.
Simulation, by the way, is how air combat strategies and weapons loads are developed and decided upon, and how pilots are trained and tested.
Not very well, I'm afraid, if to you "the range" means just shooting at targets.
fastbolt
Member
One of the perennial questions arising when people decide to lawfully carry a weapon in a professional role or just for personal protection.
When it's professionally, the "answer" may decided for you. (Or not, and then the "answer" can be all over the map for different individuals exercising permitted leeway in deciding for themselves.)
Personally/privately? The answer is also often all over the map.
Now, professionally, such as in LE, experiential knowledge can help, especially when it's at the accumulated institutional level. Acquired shared knowledge and experience can be used to help make decisions regarding the type and extent of safety equipment commonly carried (including spare magazines).
Then again, personally, meaning by the private individual, there's a lot less likelihood of shared experiential and accumulated knowledge about such things. Also, individuals are more able to make such decisions from a personally biased perspective, such as whether they simply "like" doing something a certain way, for simple personal satisfaction (or fear).
Some private individuals who don't have to wear an equipment belt (what we used to just call a gun belt) all day/night for work, may simply enjoy the opportunity to carry around their favorite handgun, and since they have a lot more control over the nature and extent of their planned daily activities, they can tailor their carrying experience more to their satisfaction and personal desires. In other words, the gentleman who carries upwards to a 40oz (loaded) pistol and 2-4 magazines on his duty belt all day at work, while wearing other gear and vest, may want to only carry a small pistol (or revolver) and 1 or 2 reloads on his own time.
Then, there's the consideration that someone's circumstances and activities may not put them at the same "risk level" as the typical working cop.
If the average person has some leeway in choosing where and when to engage in their activities, and can act to avoid any situations perceived as dangerous, that may be a factor in their selection of weapon and spare ammunition carried on a daily basis.
If the average cop is being constantly dispatched to known (or reported/suspected) dangerous situations, or frequently looking for such situations and deliberately inserting themselves into them, it's not unreasonable to speculate that a higher risk of constant exposure to danger might make it prudent to carry "more" equipment that may be needed to survive more rolls of the dice when it comes to encountering a deadly force threat or situation.
How does the average private citizen evaluate and make such determinations for him/herself? Probably however he/she decides is appropriate for him/herself, and that might be something better determined with some exposure to relevant training available to private individuals.
Still likely a roll of the dice for any given moment and set of circumstances, though.
Then again, sometimes having more ammunition, or even more than 1 handgun, may not be of much practical use to someone who can't effectively and efficiently utilize them. Not everyone who carries a hammer or screwdriver is a carpenter or electrician, right? Nor does carrying a guitar around make you a great musician, regardless of the type and quality of the guitar.
When it's professionally, the "answer" may decided for you. (Or not, and then the "answer" can be all over the map for different individuals exercising permitted leeway in deciding for themselves.)
Personally/privately? The answer is also often all over the map.
Now, professionally, such as in LE, experiential knowledge can help, especially when it's at the accumulated institutional level. Acquired shared knowledge and experience can be used to help make decisions regarding the type and extent of safety equipment commonly carried (including spare magazines).
Then again, personally, meaning by the private individual, there's a lot less likelihood of shared experiential and accumulated knowledge about such things. Also, individuals are more able to make such decisions from a personally biased perspective, such as whether they simply "like" doing something a certain way, for simple personal satisfaction (or fear).
Some private individuals who don't have to wear an equipment belt (what we used to just call a gun belt) all day/night for work, may simply enjoy the opportunity to carry around their favorite handgun, and since they have a lot more control over the nature and extent of their planned daily activities, they can tailor their carrying experience more to their satisfaction and personal desires. In other words, the gentleman who carries upwards to a 40oz (loaded) pistol and 2-4 magazines on his duty belt all day at work, while wearing other gear and vest, may want to only carry a small pistol (or revolver) and 1 or 2 reloads on his own time.
Then, there's the consideration that someone's circumstances and activities may not put them at the same "risk level" as the typical working cop.
If the average person has some leeway in choosing where and when to engage in their activities, and can act to avoid any situations perceived as dangerous, that may be a factor in their selection of weapon and spare ammunition carried on a daily basis.
If the average cop is being constantly dispatched to known (or reported/suspected) dangerous situations, or frequently looking for such situations and deliberately inserting themselves into them, it's not unreasonable to speculate that a higher risk of constant exposure to danger might make it prudent to carry "more" equipment that may be needed to survive more rolls of the dice when it comes to encountering a deadly force threat or situation.
How does the average private citizen evaluate and make such determinations for him/herself? Probably however he/she decides is appropriate for him/herself, and that might be something better determined with some exposure to relevant training available to private individuals.
Still likely a roll of the dice for any given moment and set of circumstances, though.
Then again, sometimes having more ammunition, or even more than 1 handgun, may not be of much practical use to someone who can't effectively and efficiently utilize them. Not everyone who carries a hammer or screwdriver is a carpenter or electrician, right? Nor does carrying a guitar around make you a great musician, regardless of the type and quality of the guitar.
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
Here's a way to cut the Gordian knot -- the magazine is the Achilles Heel of the automatic pistol. Always care a spare. And if you can carry one, you can carry two.
Trunk Monkey
member
I don't know that I put a whole lot of thought into how much ammunition to carry. There's a quote from Masaad Ayoob that I've posted before that essentially says If the cops carry two reloads you should too.
ETA to add quote
I carry a Glock 19 and two reloads. I carry the reloads in a Bianchi Triple Threat magazine pouch. It really doesn't take that much more space than a cell phone case.
I carry two magazines more to reduce a malfunction than because I really think I'm going to need 46 rounds.
ETA to add quote
I carry a Glock 19 and two reloads. I carry the reloads in a Bianchi Triple Threat magazine pouch. It really doesn't take that much more space than a cell phone case.
I carry two magazines more to reduce a malfunction than because I really think I'm going to need 46 rounds.
Last edited:
harrygunner
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,045
I read the thread on the other site. There and apparently here, some members are less analytical than others.
I've learned a lot about human nature from the internet. As a theoretical physicist, equations "speak" to me. Others may miss the message.
So, rather than argue like they did on the other site, IMO, it's best to present the message, clarify as needed, but don't expect all to "get it".
To add:
These charts come from combinatorics, not statistics. No data was used.
Statistics are useful in assessing risk, but that's a separate issue and not embodied in these charts.
They do use simple combinatorics to calculate probabilities of "success" for various assumptions. It's up to each of us to find sets of assumption that are similar to our skill and firearm capacity. They are a decent enough way to determine if one can "get there" and if not, there's a need to change something.
The value comes from helping us, when we honestly look at our skills under stress, to determine if change is necessary.
I've learned a lot about human nature from the internet. As a theoretical physicist, equations "speak" to me. Others may miss the message.
So, rather than argue like they did on the other site, IMO, it's best to present the message, clarify as needed, but don't expect all to "get it".
To add:
These charts come from combinatorics, not statistics. No data was used.
Statistics are useful in assessing risk, but that's a separate issue and not embodied in these charts.
They do use simple combinatorics to calculate probabilities of "success" for various assumptions. It's up to each of us to find sets of assumption that are similar to our skill and firearm capacity. They are a decent enough way to determine if one can "get there" and if not, there's a need to change something.
The value comes from helping us, when we honestly look at our skills under stress, to determine if change is necessary.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm coming to the same conclusion.
Correct. But somehow that point can be very hard to get across.
Trying to assess one's own real-world gunfighting skills is probably a tough challenge for most people. I suggest looking at the scenarios (sets of assumptions) with commonly quoted/typical hit rates gleaned from gunfight statistics, or perhaps a range of hit rates to get a feel for if a particular scenario (assumption set) is workable or not.
Last edited:
Creaky_Old_Cop
member
That wasn't my question and to the extent you're trying to turn my question back on itself it is an irrelevancy and I'm not asking how an untrained shooter determined the "hit rate probability".
Seriously? That WAS your question, I didn't turn it back on itself, it was already headed in reverse. I answered the question you asked.
What I'm asking is how someone who only has the experience of shooting at a range or a staged scenario knows what their "hit rate probability" is going to be under the very difference circumstances and stress of an actual shooting; a question which all of your "eating dirt" comments totally ignore and fail to address.
Um...no...your original question, which is far different from this one was what you asked, not the "but but but but what I really meant was" question above. Perhaps if your initial question hadn't been so poorly written so that it "meant what you didn't mean" then the answer might have been different...but...no, actually it wouldn't have. You lacked specificity and clarity. Backpedaling now doesn't change what you asked.
And as far as the "I never assume anything" bravado, note that unless you already know both your "hit rate probability" in an actual self-defense situation and the number if shots it will take to bring down a bad guy, these figures must be assumed, so if John's charts are to have any meaning to most shooters, they are assuming (or projecting, or deriving) something.
How is it bravado to never assume? I mean honestly, now you're just typing gibberish. Really, it's gibberish. The "hit rate probability" is based on what? Answer THAT question, oh wait...it was based on an assumption that has to be assumed in order to make another assumption upon which to base another assumption...so that one can finally assume something else....Ugh. It makes my eyeballs bleed.
I don't assume. A fight will take as few or as many rounds as it will take to end it. A fight is a fluid and dynamic event. I have seen a subject absorb 15 rounds of 45 and not "go down" until he was taken out by a cruiser rolling in at 40 miles an hour. I have seen a chud take a peripheral hit with a 380 and literally, lay down and die. The thought of using a chart, or a graph which is made up of assumptions to choose what gun, or at least what capacity your gun should utilize is likewise gibberish. It's the hits that matter, so the gun with which you actually shoot the best, and train with, and put in the blood, sweat, tears, and gobble the range dirt is far better than one you carry because a chart said you should. If Shooter A actually does silly **** like get the hits he needs when he needs them with an 8-round 1911, but can't hit the broad side of a barn with all 18 rounds in a Glock 17...should he not carry the 1911 in favor of the Glock? No, that would be...stupid, but in essence, that is the message here.
And please stop talking to people like you're the only one who has ever fired a weapon in the line of duty
And once again you missed the mark. I was referring to putting in the time TRAINING. Did you miss that, or just assume I meant something else? I don't equivocate or lack specificity, and when I venture an opinion it's from experience. I never mentioned how many times I fired my weapon in the line of duty. I was specifically referring to all the hard work and training that went into making me CONFIDENT that when I was in a critical incident that the mechanics of shooting would be the least important thing on my mind. The mechanics of shooting was handled. Then it only left the mental, which can also be handled with hard work and training. So, cross that off, got it. No need to worry because you've "trained for this" was the mantra we went by. Then what's left? Not much other than putting what you have trained for to work.
jimbo555
Member
The good news is there's many choices in a double stack compact and subcompact pistol. Not just Glock, Ruger sr9c, s&w m&p9c, sign p320 and many more. My favorite is the hkp2000sk. Easy to conceal and shoots like a full size.
I for one find these interesting. It's not likely to change anything for me personally, though it underscores the notion that it's best to continue seeking improvement, and that I'm probably better off reaching for the G19 than the G43. An analysis does not make my decisions for me, but it allows me to make them in a more informed way.
Thanks John, Kleanbore.
Now back to the nerf bat fight.
Thanks John, Kleanbore.
Now back to the nerf bat fight.
At the moment I'm targeting carrying 2 spare mags for my single stacks and one spare mag for my doubles. That gets me 25 rds total for both my double stack compacts, 24 rds with my shield (I carry it with the 7rd mag and 8rds for spares), and 19 rds with a keltec p3at. I'm still trying to find optimal ways to carry *comfortably*.
I normally wear polo type shirts untucked. At the moment I'm using those walmart nylon velcro double pouch mag holders for my single stacks. They're flat, comfortable and pliable. For the double stacks I'm using fitted leather holders with spring clips.
I normally wear polo type shirts untucked. At the moment I'm using those walmart nylon velcro double pouch mag holders for my single stacks. They're flat, comfortable and pliable. For the double stacks I'm using fitted leather holders with spring clips.
Last edited:
Mikhail Weiss
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 507
So, a Drake Equation. With fewer variables.
1911 guy
Member
Information is useful, even if it is statistical information. It allows us to establish some sort of baseline grounded in the reality of accumulated data. Of course it can never be completely accurate in every circumstance, or even completely accurate in ANY circumstance. But it does give a look into hedging the odds in your favor. Part of hedging those odds is training and familiarity. Probably the biggest part.
I, too, am not a statistics guy. However, raw data says civilian gunfights are ended in 3 to 5 shots, I carry 7. Immutable fact says that mechanical devices can fail. I carry a reload in an attempt to mitigate the most common cause of handgun failure. After that, it comes down to educating yourself as much as possible and making decisions based upon that.
While I may not find these graphs immediately useful, there's no such thing as too much intel.
I, too, am not a statistics guy. However, raw data says civilian gunfights are ended in 3 to 5 shots, I carry 7. Immutable fact says that mechanical devices can fail. I carry a reload in an attempt to mitigate the most common cause of handgun failure. After that, it comes down to educating yourself as much as possible and making decisions based upon that.
While I may not find these graphs immediately useful, there's no such thing as too much intel.
Guitarmike
Member
From my perspective the charts tell me I better carry as many rounds as possible. I train every week and have been in high stress situations. When everything goes wrong and I have shoot someone to stop them from hurting me or my family my probably of success will increase with more ammunition. It is not something I look forward to.
Mike
Hokie_PhD
Member
I agree carrying two is preferred. But I disagree just because you can carry one means you can carry two.
When I wear slacks and a dress shirt I carry a spare mag in a pocket. A second isn't a viable option.
When I've felt I was going someplace with a higher probability of danger, I've carried four spare mags in a phone case. So one in the gun, and five in the case.
That said, reading this thread has made my head spin. Other than former military and LE how many here especially the OP have been in a situation where a firearm was needed? I have and it was in a "gun free zone" where I was trapped. I'm lucky to be alive as I wasn't armed.
Had I been armed, one mag would have sufficed as I had a clear view of the gunman. But each event is unique. So what to carry is a difficult question as we never know what the event will be.
It does have fewer variables. Like the Drake equation it is related to probability. But it isn't a Drake equation.
I understand your frustration. But it's not frustration at the graphs because it is clear from your comments that you don't understand what they are or what they can be used for. It is frustration at your projection of what you think the graphs are. And from what I gather that you think they are and what they are for, I can understand your frustration.
Going back to my earlier analogy, the guy complaining about the pocket calculator's inability to replicate human emotion is completely correct and his frustration and irritation are understandable. But he's completely missing the fact that the pocket calculator was never intended to replicate human emotion. And so his frustration is about a projection of what he incorrectly believes the pocket calculator is intended to do, it's not a realistic criticism of the pocket calculator's ability to perform its intended function.
Just to clarify, the graphs aren't based on statistics. They don't contain real-world data nor the analysis of collected real-world data sets. They are simply the results of probability calculations as explained in the opening post.
TomJ
Contributing Member
I understand that the odds of me needing my gun, much less needing to reload twice are almost non existent, but I do carry two magazines for the following reasons:
1. While we live in a safe Chicago suburb, to the extent that crimes are committed it's common for them to be committed by groups of 3 to 4 people or more.
2. Others have mentioned magazine failures. Having a spare for that reason makes sense to me.
3. I can't tell you how many times I've been surprised by events or situations, some violent others not. If I do find myself in the unfortunate situation of needing a gun I have no idea what that situation will be.
4. It costs me nothing to carry the extra magazine. There's no downside to having it, so I'm not sure why i wouldn't carry it.
1. While we live in a safe Chicago suburb, to the extent that crimes are committed it's common for them to be committed by groups of 3 to 4 people or more.
2. Others have mentioned magazine failures. Having a spare for that reason makes sense to me.
3. I can't tell you how many times I've been surprised by events or situations, some violent others not. If I do find myself in the unfortunate situation of needing a gun I have no idea what that situation will be.
4. It costs me nothing to carry the extra magazine. There's no downside to having it, so I'm not sure why i wouldn't carry it.
Klint Beastwood
member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
- Messages
- 622
So on the topic of probability and statistics. Let's say you have a ccw, and you work at a gas station. You check into you shift and your working and a customer comes in. Then another, you help them. And another customer comes in. They leave. The another comes in. They leave. 7 hours later. A customer comes in. They leave. Now John comes in. He's going to relieve you, but first he needs to go take a dump. Mean while. Another customer comes in......and leaves. Then another comes in. Then pulls a gun and shoots you in the face. What's the hit proabability or chart statistic thats going to help you now? What could you have done differently besides not work at a gas station? Life is that sudden and unpredictable.
Last edited:
Blue Thunder
Member
For me it is a G-19 with 16 and two 15 round spare mags. Total of 46. The long arm FN-15 is 142 in 5 mags. First has 30 with one in the chamber. The spares hold 28 as if filled to 30 they will not lock into the rifle with one in the chamber in a reload situation.
Schwing
Member
There seems to be some pretty solid opinions on this. I have no interest in getting emotionally involved but here is my .02.
While I think I am on-board with the OPs intent, I see this as very similar to those "How much money are you going to need in retirement" calculators. Certainly, they come up with a number at the end that either makes you feel great and on track or that makes you feel hopelessly behind. In the end, how you feel, however, is quite irrelevant when actual events play out. Injury, disease, job loss, natural disasters, economy shifts, lawsuits, theft, divorce, marriage, and even the occasional unexpected windfall are just a few of many thousands of unknown variables. Any one of these variables can completely change the equation making the entire calculator useless in trying to come up with a magic number. Having said that, you are foolish if you don't make a plan and stick to it, adjusting as much as you can when those variables come into play.
Now, compare that to a defensive situation and you have the same problem. How many opponents are there, what is their physical disposition? What is the cover like? What is the concealment like? Are you alone or in a group? What is your physical disposition and that of those in your group? Are you on the beach in a swimsuit? Are you at church in a double breasted suit? You need a plan for a nearly limitless number of scenarios (which is where training comes in) but there is no firearm or number of rounds that can plan for every possible defensive situation and, IMHO, no chart can come close to giving me an idea what that needed number of rounds might be.
Each man has to decide this for himself. In my own case, I cover my eyes and ears to all of the possibilities and assume a one on one opponent situation. That lends itself to carrying a firearm that I will realistically have on my person at all times with the number of rounds that I personally feel comfortable with. Like the retirement calculator, I am not stupid enough to think that how I feel is going to matter much but it is a starting point.
Anyway, having read through the thread, my personal conclusion is the same as it is regarding many other topics. To me (and I say this because I am expressing an opinion and not trying to invalidate or validate anything) it is trying to quantify something that is not quantifiable. Just like a retirement calculator, it might get you on the map but the map of Texas is a pretty big place.
While I think I am on-board with the OPs intent, I see this as very similar to those "How much money are you going to need in retirement" calculators. Certainly, they come up with a number at the end that either makes you feel great and on track or that makes you feel hopelessly behind. In the end, how you feel, however, is quite irrelevant when actual events play out. Injury, disease, job loss, natural disasters, economy shifts, lawsuits, theft, divorce, marriage, and even the occasional unexpected windfall are just a few of many thousands of unknown variables. Any one of these variables can completely change the equation making the entire calculator useless in trying to come up with a magic number. Having said that, you are foolish if you don't make a plan and stick to it, adjusting as much as you can when those variables come into play.
Now, compare that to a defensive situation and you have the same problem. How many opponents are there, what is their physical disposition? What is the cover like? What is the concealment like? Are you alone or in a group? What is your physical disposition and that of those in your group? Are you on the beach in a swimsuit? Are you at church in a double breasted suit? You need a plan for a nearly limitless number of scenarios (which is where training comes in) but there is no firearm or number of rounds that can plan for every possible defensive situation and, IMHO, no chart can come close to giving me an idea what that needed number of rounds might be.
Each man has to decide this for himself. In my own case, I cover my eyes and ears to all of the possibilities and assume a one on one opponent situation. That lends itself to carrying a firearm that I will realistically have on my person at all times with the number of rounds that I personally feel comfortable with. Like the retirement calculator, I am not stupid enough to think that how I feel is going to matter much but it is a starting point.
Anyway, having read through the thread, my personal conclusion is the same as it is regarding many other topics. To me (and I say this because I am expressing an opinion and not trying to invalidate or validate anything) it is trying to quantify something that is not quantifiable. Just like a retirement calculator, it might get you on the map but the map of Texas is a pretty big place.
Yep. They won't/can't help with that. And they aren't intended to.
Yup. The graphs aren't going to predict how actual events will play out. They will provide information that can be used to put you in a position that's not hopeless. The retirement calculator isn't a terrible analogy. It can't tell you how things are going to turn out, but a good retirement calculator can give you an idea if your current planning is in the right ballpark or if it's totally inadequate or massive overkill. More importantly, by playing around with the inputs of a well-designed retirement calculator, you can get a feel for how different variables affect things.
Similarly, the graphs can give you an idea of how manipulating input variables affects things..
Going back to the retirement calculator analogy, let's say it says you need $2 Million to retire and you are planning to have $1.9 Million. Does that mean you need to scramble around for another $0.1 Mil or you're in dire straits? No. Does it mean that you are guaranteed not to run out of money if you retire? Absolutely not--you could get hit with any number of catastrophes which could exhaust your money early. Does it mean your retirement plan is perfect? Of course not. But (assuming that the calculator is set up reasonably well) it gives you a rough idea that you probably weren't smoking something when you set up the plan.
What about if you think you need $20K and it tells you that you need $3.5Million. Is $3.5Million the exact right number? Of course not. Will $3.5Million guarantee you won't run out of money? Nope. Does only having $20K guarantee that you'll run out of money in retirement? Nope--you could drop dead of a heart attack during your retirement party. What it tells you (assuming that the calculator is set up reasonably well) is that you need to rethink your plan. You're headed for a situation where success (as defined by not running out of money before you die) is extremely unlikely and that's not a good thing.
But the real value isn't so much in running a single scenario and taking the results as gospel, it's in being able to play around with the inputs and see how they affect things.
Correct. And these graphs certainly won't tell you that. They do provide useful information but only for those who can get over the fact that they're not intended to be gunfight outcome predictors or self-defense scenario simulators. There's no magic to the graphs--what they are and what they do is very basic and very simple.
What the graphs are quantifying is very quantifiable. It's just that, for some reason, people have a very hard time understanding what it is (or more pertinently) what it isn't.
The graphs allow a person to easily "calculate" some probabilities. Some people will read the explanation of how they work and will grasp how being able to perform that kind of calculation could provide information that can be related to choosing the capacity of a carry gun and which can help understand the basics of how manipulating some basic variables can change the probabilities. People like that will find the graphs interesting and perhaps even useful. If you find yourself in this category, then enjoy the graphs.
Other people will look at the graphs and (correctly) state that there's no way that they could accurately predict the outcome of real-world gunfights. People like that will not find the graphs interesting or useful and may even be upset by them. Not because of what the graphs actually are, but because of what they think they are.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked