David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
Since most on this forum would carry a Revolver
- Thread starter gmh1013
- Start date
- Status
Bubba, the number of shots required only count when the number is greater than zero.
And why would we ever want to consider "lose" scenarios?
So, for those in which the the defender fires and successfully defends himself or herself with one or two shots, what constitutes "almost all"? How many of these incidents involved one attacker? Two? More than two?
Basis for the statistics?
What is the distribution for those that are "resolved" in three or more shots?
Well, yeah. Targets perhaps.
Also, you should not hit anyone else.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,709
I might not be thinking straight on this one, but...
...if I were to find myself in a circumstance a la Aurora or Sandy Hook...that is to say, me and my puny sidearm against someone with rifle(s), shotgun(s), pistol(s) and body armor, then I am two strikes down before we begin.
If he notes that I am armed, that may well be Strike Three for me.
As I see it, about the only chance I have for a good outcome is if I see him first, and either get in one good shot or find cover/concealment and try again.
Either way, I think that my having only six-to-eight rounds is likely to be the least of my worries.
...if I were to find myself in a circumstance a la Aurora or Sandy Hook...that is to say, me and my puny sidearm against someone with rifle(s), shotgun(s), pistol(s) and body armor, then I am two strikes down before we begin.
If he notes that I am armed, that may well be Strike Three for me.
As I see it, about the only chance I have for a good outcome is if I see him first, and either get in one good shot or find cover/concealment and try again.
Either way, I think that my having only six-to-eight rounds is likely to be the least of my worries.
Pointshoot
Member
I don't choose my sidearm based on the hype over mass shooting events that are less likely than being struck by lightening. (Look up the stats for victims of both kinds of events over the last 10 years.)
I like semi auto pistols in addition to revolvers. That said, there's alot to be said for the simplicity of a revolver when in dangerous circumstances. But 'its the craftsman, not the tool that counts most'. Foremost is effective training, practice, and the right attitude.
I like semi auto pistols in addition to revolvers. That said, there's alot to be said for the simplicity of a revolver when in dangerous circumstances. But 'its the craftsman, not the tool that counts most'. Foremost is effective training, practice, and the right attitude.
Deaf Smith
Member
I'd pack any of my six shooters and never worry a bit (unless a 21 ninja attack came my way.)
And I have a good stable of snub six shooters (and five shooters to!)
Deaf
And I have a good stable of snub six shooters (and five shooters to!)
Deaf
Pointshoot
Member
David E said regarding the statement that most SD/HD situations are settled with 1-2 shots: "Except that's not true."
Whats your evidence that civilians in self & home defense situations shoot more than 2 rounds in those circumstances ? (Not talking about police or military.)
And the same question to the poster who said that. Ive heard it repeated many times, but without a source.
Thanks
Whats your evidence that civilians in self & home defense situations shoot more than 2 rounds in those circumstances ? (Not talking about police or military.)
And the same question to the poster who said that. Ive heard it repeated many times, but without a source.
Thanks
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
The source is the FBI.
the reason it's wrong is that it includes ALL incidents where a shot is fired, such as suicides, warning shots, execution style killings, accidental discharges, animal out-downs, etc.
Not all of these are gun confrontations, defense or anything close. All of them typically show one shot being fired. This skews the stat misleadingly downward.
I also thought five to be plenty, before thinking about it.
Consider the following:
- The percentage of hits you are likely to achieve when firing very quickly under tress at a quckly moving target
- The number of hits it is likely to take to stop an assailant effectively
- Whether you will need to employ deadly force on more than one assailant, if you have to employ deadly force at all.
Now, if the percentage is 30, if the number of hits required is two, and the answer to the last question is yes--and if you are able to stop shooting after hitting the assailant twice--what do you think your chances would be with five rounds?
Three out of one hundred. That's probably best case, and it is not good.
I no longer carry my J-frame as a primary weapon.
See this for the math.
Pointshoot
Member
David E said: "The source is the FBI.
the reason it's wrong is that it includes ALL incidents where a shot is fired, such as suicides, warning shots, execution style killings, accidental discharges, animal out-downs, etc.
Not all of these are gun confrontations, defense or anything close. All of them typically show one shot being fired. This skews the stat misleadingly downward."
First of all, this is not to pick on you, at all.
I have an interest in statistics & the way that statistical information is reported. I did a quick search of the FBI website and did not find a report on the number of shots fired in various civilian defensive shooting incidents. But this was a quick search, and likely I have to keep at it.
I've heard the statement "most incidents involve no more than two shots" with no actual sources given for the statement. Saying its from the FBI, Interpol, or whomever isnt adequate, even if true. When was the study made ? In 2012 or in 1960 ? Was it of civilians defending themselves or of police ? Were the shooters trained or not ? Were the shooters everyday Joe civilians or gang bangers doing the 'side-ways hold/spray & pray and who cares who else I hit' types ? Is there any evidence that having more rounds (or fewer) immediately on board a handgun makes any difference in the defensive situations most typical for civilians ?
And if your statement is correct - - - what is the actual number taking this into account ? If it isn't an average of 2 rounds - - - - was it 2.25 or 3, . . or 15 ?
Someone could claim that revolvers are more appropriate for civilian self defense carry because they are shot more deliberately & carefully (often only 5-7rounds on board) and there's a lesser likelihood of extra rounds hitting innocent bystanders. - - - But I don't know of any statistics that back such a statement.
Too often things are repeated and passed on without references so that they cannot be checked out more thoroughly and put in context.
the reason it's wrong is that it includes ALL incidents where a shot is fired, such as suicides, warning shots, execution style killings, accidental discharges, animal out-downs, etc.
Not all of these are gun confrontations, defense or anything close. All of them typically show one shot being fired. This skews the stat misleadingly downward."
First of all, this is not to pick on you, at all.
I have an interest in statistics & the way that statistical information is reported. I did a quick search of the FBI website and did not find a report on the number of shots fired in various civilian defensive shooting incidents. But this was a quick search, and likely I have to keep at it.
I've heard the statement "most incidents involve no more than two shots" with no actual sources given for the statement. Saying its from the FBI, Interpol, or whomever isnt adequate, even if true. When was the study made ? In 2012 or in 1960 ? Was it of civilians defending themselves or of police ? Were the shooters trained or not ? Were the shooters everyday Joe civilians or gang bangers doing the 'side-ways hold/spray & pray and who cares who else I hit' types ? Is there any evidence that having more rounds (or fewer) immediately on board a handgun makes any difference in the defensive situations most typical for civilians ?
And if your statement is correct - - - what is the actual number taking this into account ? If it isn't an average of 2 rounds - - - - was it 2.25 or 3, . . or 15 ?
Someone could claim that revolvers are more appropriate for civilian self defense carry because they are shot more deliberately & carefully (often only 5-7rounds on board) and there's a lesser likelihood of extra rounds hitting innocent bystanders. - - - But I don't know of any statistics that back such a statement.
Too often things are repeated and passed on without references so that they cannot be checked out more thoroughly and put in context.
Last edited:
According to Tom Givens of Rangemaster, there are no comprehensive data collected on the details of civilian defensive gun use incidents only. There are data for law enforcement shootings, as would likely be expected. There are reasons for the collective LEO community to undertake evaluating police shootings, but little reason to do anything more in analyzing an individual defensive shooting than is necessary to determine justification or negligence, and no reason to compile the data.
Tom goes on to say that the latter are really not very useful in terms of drawing conclusions for civilian defensive shootings. Civilians do not make traffic stops in which they encounter dangerous felons. They are not charged with the pursuit and capture of dangerous suspects. The are not summoned to bars to stop fights.
There is an exception: the stats for FBI agents, comprising as small data set, are likely not all that inappropriate for comparison. These involve plain clothes persons who are as likely as any of us to be surprised by a couple of felons at a service station or ATM.
What would one do with the answer?
Do not confuse shooting at the range with self defense.
Think for a moment. If you are getting into or out of your car and are surprised by a parson ten meters away who runs at you with obvious ill intent at a peed of five meters per second, do you somehow imagine that you will shoot "deliberately and carefully"--no matter what you are carrying? How many rounds would you expect to shoot before you are reasonably sure you have effected a stop? Would you expect to stop after two rounds?
And if you were able to shoot "deliberately and carefully", just what is it that you would provide in the way of evidence to support a claim that the use of deadly force had been immediately necessary to stop an imminent threat?
Of course not, but common sense eliminates the need.
There are some data. In Lessons from the Street, Tom Givens presents an analysis of several defensive shootings involving gradates of Rangemaster in Memphis. The data set is small. The mean number of shots fired, IIRC, was 4.9 rounds. No one fired 4.9 rounds.
And by the way, the FBI's data on incidents involving FBI agents are not inconsistent with those collected by Rangemaster.
A police department elsewhere in Tennessee compiled a set of data involving defensive shootings. These data have been discussed here at length. The data were not inconsistent with the Rangemaster data. What stood out for me was the high proportion of incidents involving two or more attackers.
Again, common sense comes into play. How many violent criminal actors would undertake the risk of attacking someone alone if there were an alternative?
This is not an area in which actual data will prove useful. First, frequency of occurrence is very low. Second, as discussed, the data have not been compiled. And third, a mean value would be of no consequence.
Should one want to base a conclusion on more than common sense, simulation and FoF training is the way to gather useful information. That's also the case in analyzing air combat, and for the same reasons.
One can, however, make some assumptions about the number of hits that might be needed to stop an assailant, and about the number of shots that might be needed to effect hat number of hits. One can then vary those assumptions to his heart's content. And one can run the numbers, and draw his own conclusions.
That would be far more useful than looking for some average.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
At least you have a GUN!
Most of the time its my Smith model 61 escort in 22LR that is carried but its CARRIED. When going to a bigger public gathering its the Colt 38 agent. I have come to the conclusion that I will return fire long enough to subdue the bad guy so as to finish him off with his gun. Again at least I can return fire. Thanks to you for stepping up to the plate and going through all the requirements to carry and then doing so.
Most of the time its my Smith model 61 escort in 22LR that is carried but its CARRIED. When going to a bigger public gathering its the Colt 38 agent. I have come to the conclusion that I will return fire long enough to subdue the bad guy so as to finish him off with his gun. Again at least I can return fire. Thanks to you for stepping up to the plate and going through all the requirements to carry and then doing so.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
Ummmm, I carry to defend myself and loved ones with me from everyday POSSIBLE threats. I carry a revolver at times, I carry an auto sometimes.
On that note, if I saw an opportinity to put a well placed shot on an active shooter, that was not armored and a well placed shot would ACTUALLY be effective, I'd take the shot, no matter what gun I had on me. If I think I'd be adding to the mayhem, I would not take the shot because it would draw attention to myself and possibly get me or a loved one killed.
I carry enough ammo to deal with a realistic threat, not a maniac with an AR or AK. I am not a cop, I am not a soldier, nor am I a coward. I am however, a realist, and if average joe on this forum thinks they will accomplish anything by carrying a load of ammo or be a hero, I encourage those with that mindset to think a little more realistically as well. By the way, has anyone thought about the fact that if there is an active shooter, and you are trying to "help", thecops may assume you are a second shooter, and kill you as well?
Carry what you need to to take care of yourself and loved ones, not what you need to be a cop............ unless you are in fact a cop.
I carry a 5 shot .357 SP101, or a 5 shot .38 S&W 642, or a 6 shot Springfield XDs when I'm out and about.
On that note, if I saw an opportinity to put a well placed shot on an active shooter, that was not armored and a well placed shot would ACTUALLY be effective, I'd take the shot, no matter what gun I had on me. If I think I'd be adding to the mayhem, I would not take the shot because it would draw attention to myself and possibly get me or a loved one killed.
I carry enough ammo to deal with a realistic threat, not a maniac with an AR or AK. I am not a cop, I am not a soldier, nor am I a coward. I am however, a realist, and if average joe on this forum thinks they will accomplish anything by carrying a load of ammo or be a hero, I encourage those with that mindset to think a little more realistically as well. By the way, has anyone thought about the fact that if there is an active shooter, and you are trying to "help", thecops may assume you are a second shooter, and kill you as well?
Carry what you need to to take care of yourself and loved ones, not what you need to be a cop............ unless you are in fact a cop.
I carry a 5 shot .357 SP101, or a 5 shot .38 S&W 642, or a 6 shot Springfield XDs when I'm out and about.
txgunsuscg
Member
I find that arguing capacity and needs can get a little ridiculous. Honestly, if it was legal, I would have a B&T TP-9 or a Glock 18 with shoulder stock and 33 round magazines.
However, looking at it from a more practical perspective:
I normally carry a Glock 19 with a standard capacity mag and two backups (I also carry a blowout kit, weapons light, hand flashlight, knife, and survival kit, but that's a discussion for another thread). There are times, though, when I can't effectively conceal a 19, even at 6'4" and 219 lbs. At those times I choose to carry a 442. I tried the compact auto, and I almost shot my thumb off, and induced multiple feeding/extracting failures by unintentionally contacting the slide. My big hands just don't work with the current batch of in vogue micro pistols.
More important that arguing capacity is understanding capacity when planning. As I said, there are times when I can only effectively conceal a 442. At those times, I understand that I have 5 rounds, and it goes into my operational planning. I do not feel "undergunned" as I still have a means of defending myself, if not my optimal means. As an LEO I know put it: "What is the best gun to carry to defend yourself? The one you have on you."
However, looking at it from a more practical perspective:
I normally carry a Glock 19 with a standard capacity mag and two backups (I also carry a blowout kit, weapons light, hand flashlight, knife, and survival kit, but that's a discussion for another thread). There are times, though, when I can't effectively conceal a 19, even at 6'4" and 219 lbs. At those times I choose to carry a 442. I tried the compact auto, and I almost shot my thumb off, and induced multiple feeding/extracting failures by unintentionally contacting the slide. My big hands just don't work with the current batch of in vogue micro pistols.
More important that arguing capacity is understanding capacity when planning. As I said, there are times when I can only effectively conceal a 442. At those times, I understand that I have 5 rounds, and it goes into my operational planning. I do not feel "undergunned" as I still have a means of defending myself, if not my optimal means. As an LEO I know put it: "What is the best gun to carry to defend yourself? The one you have on you."
Hammerdown77
Member
Yep. Or another CCW holder might shoot you. Almost happened in the AZ Gabby Giffords shooting, when the armed CCW holder came out of the grocery store and almost shot one of the guys in the crowd who had wrestled the Glock from Laughner's hand.
txgunsuscg
Member
A consideration, yes, but it could happen to the undercover or off-duty cop who may be present as well. Its not exclusively a CCW issue.
I'm going to say this publicly--once.
We do not allow people to advocate murder or any other unlawful acts on THR.
Good thinking!
They most surely may--and so might another armed citizen.
Good thinking, again. But the question is, will your assessment prove adequate? Let's hope none of us ever find out otherwise.
Yes, and it has happened.
raindog
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2009
- Messages
- 103
True, but this isn't the range. I'd like to think I'll be a veins-of-icewater smooth operator, but the reality is that I'll be surprised, maybe off-balance, jacked on adrenaline, and in holy-poop-I'm-gonna-die mode. Easy in that circumstance to pop off a bunch of rounds real fast.
That said, I do carry an LCR more than anything else, because it's very easy to carry, and the first rule...
Tcruse
Member
I question the "Since most on this forum would carry a Revolver" statement (THR site in general). If the word "most" was replaced with "some" then I could agree. I personally would never trust a wheel gun, they probably fail less often, but when they fail the effort to put them back in service is usually a "repair" project. My KISS princiapal gun would be something like a Glock 17/19/26.
If you look at "experienced" and "long time" shooters there are a lot of revolver supporters, but among the "new shooters" a revolver is usually not even considered. In these parts the ranges are just swamped with new shooters taking classes and getting CCW license. The ratio of revolver to Semi-Automatic is about 1 to 100. The more advanced pistol classes generally have requirements that may not be possible with revolvers.
If you look at "experienced" and "long time" shooters there are a lot of revolver supporters, but among the "new shooters" a revolver is usually not even considered. In these parts the ranges are just swamped with new shooters taking classes and getting CCW license. The ratio of revolver to Semi-Automatic is about 1 to 100. The more advanced pistol classes generally have requirements that may not be possible with revolvers.
Pointshoot
Member
Kleanbore - - - thank you for your very thoughtful and informative reply to my last post.
My point is that people often make decisions based on 'facts' that are simply repeated opinion. And my made up argument for a revolver as 'more deliberate' and 'less likely to hurt bystanders" was given as another example of a similiar kind of statement - - one without any basis in hard data (at least that I am aware of).
What to do with all this - - if there isn't relevant data out there ? IMO - - as a civilian, its to use whatever you prefer in terms of a sidearm (revolver or semi-auto) and get proper training and lots of realistic practice in its use. And, to be clear mentally beforehand on what you may be prepared to do, and the consequences of that.
My point is that people often make decisions based on 'facts' that are simply repeated opinion. And my made up argument for a revolver as 'more deliberate' and 'less likely to hurt bystanders" was given as another example of a similiar kind of statement - - one without any basis in hard data (at least that I am aware of).
What to do with all this - - if there isn't relevant data out there ? IMO - - as a civilian, its to use whatever you prefer in terms of a sidearm (revolver or semi-auto) and get proper training and lots of realistic practice in its use. And, to be clear mentally beforehand on what you may be prepared to do, and the consequences of that.
There are all kinds of decisions that have to be made in the absence of actual data. In some cases the events have not yet happened; in others, they have happened very infrequently; in others, even though there may have been a number of occurrences, the number of variables is so great that definitive conclusions cannot be drawn; and in still others, there may be no one who can describe what happened.
Use of force situations could fall into any or all of the above. That does not mean that we cannot learn a lot about what might be expected under different possible scenarios.
To illustrate the concept, let's go to something I mentioned before: air combat. In WWII there were numerous occurrences, and the biggest problem resided in knowing what had happened when an aircrew did not return. Today, we have very, very little current real experience. But we have to develop and understand--and teach--strategy and tactics anyway. To do so, we rely on analysis, on modeling, and on simulation.
We do the same thing in preparing for nuclear powerplant disaster handling, and for handling of emergencies in a lot of other areas.
People engage in simulation and in FoF (force on force) role-playing in use of force exercises, too. They serve us well, but we do, of course, have to add what has been learned from real world data on wounding effectiveness.
That''s fine, as long as "whatever you prefer" reflects a realistic, informed decision, and as long as that "realistic practice" really is realistic. Range shooting is good and it is valuable, but I contend that unless one trains for situations such as reacting to at least two very fast moving targets attacking violently and without warning, that practice is inadequate.
I think it will show anyone very quickly that relying on closure in one to two shots would not be at all prudent.
Yes indeed. Consider this.
SFsc616171
Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 213
In response to the Op's question: (anyword of reader's imagination) NO!
Think on it ... all visual media entertainment show a stupid black pistol. BG thinks they are maybe get shot, maybe not, according to visual media reporting.
The idea of 'mo' bullets, da bettuh to shoot wi'd! Assinine! Insane! Wrong!
It is a rationalization of the good ol' 'pray and spray'. It doesn't cut the mustard, Charlie Brown!
You, me, all of us, who have chosen to carry a firearm, legally, have made the choice, that, if-and-I-hope-not-ever that we have to use that firearm, to ensure that WE can respond SAFELY, no matter where we find that ugly moment to be. When we do respond, each bullet must find itself, in the intended target, only. In the mall, the chl'er could not, so he did not. In the theater, the theater management voided the citizens' right to self-preservation, creating a perfect environemnt for what happened. As chl'er's, we would have to defer to that voiding, in some cases, by state law, in concurrence with the theater management.
Feeling 'underguned', because I choose to carry a revolver, is NOT a notion I have. I have six cartridges. I have six opportunities to employ my marksmanship skills, and place them deliberately, on the intended target. I had to do this, in order to pass my qual. for my eligibility for my chl, (the rest was entirely up to the sheriff's dept.). To switch to an auto-loader, just because it had a larger-than-six magazine, would be to negate those skills that i have already acquired, with an older piece of technology, that i have become accustomed to using. I would have to learn the intricacies of an auto-loader, the particular ammo necessary to have it function correctly, let alone what the auto-loader "likes". I can't pocket carry an auto-loader with 14, but I can, a J Frame with 5. I can a K Frame with 6, as well. If need be, i can a K Frame, with a four inch barrel. Lastly, revolvers work, without any tap-rack-bang murphy moments. That just might be the last personal murphy moment, on this Earth. No thanks!
Think on it ... all visual media entertainment show a stupid black pistol. BG thinks they are maybe get shot, maybe not, according to visual media reporting.
The idea of 'mo' bullets, da bettuh to shoot wi'd! Assinine! Insane! Wrong!
It is a rationalization of the good ol' 'pray and spray'. It doesn't cut the mustard, Charlie Brown!
You, me, all of us, who have chosen to carry a firearm, legally, have made the choice, that, if-and-I-hope-not-ever that we have to use that firearm, to ensure that WE can respond SAFELY, no matter where we find that ugly moment to be. When we do respond, each bullet must find itself, in the intended target, only. In the mall, the chl'er could not, so he did not. In the theater, the theater management voided the citizens' right to self-preservation, creating a perfect environemnt for what happened. As chl'er's, we would have to defer to that voiding, in some cases, by state law, in concurrence with the theater management.
Feeling 'underguned', because I choose to carry a revolver, is NOT a notion I have. I have six cartridges. I have six opportunities to employ my marksmanship skills, and place them deliberately, on the intended target. I had to do this, in order to pass my qual. for my eligibility for my chl, (the rest was entirely up to the sheriff's dept.). To switch to an auto-loader, just because it had a larger-than-six magazine, would be to negate those skills that i have already acquired, with an older piece of technology, that i have become accustomed to using. I would have to learn the intricacies of an auto-loader, the particular ammo necessary to have it function correctly, let alone what the auto-loader "likes". I can't pocket carry an auto-loader with 14, but I can, a J Frame with 5. I can a K Frame with 6, as well. If need be, i can a K Frame, with a four inch barrel. Lastly, revolvers work, without any tap-rack-bang murphy moments. That just might be the last personal murphy moment, on this Earth. No thanks!
Deltaboy1984
Member
I carry 5 shot Charter Undercover and I Don' t feel under gunned.
- Status
