Cont' in new direction to closed thread. How many rounds to carry.

[X-Rap]

I liken this discussion to concrete forms, I was always asked if we had enough braces to hold the pressure of the concrete and my reply was usually " you never know when you have to many but you find out real soon when you don't have enough".
Until we are in that gunfight we will never know and even then it will only be relative to that moment in time and I will always stand by my view that having the average amount of rounds needed even if it was written in stone is a stupid and dangerous proposition.

 

[kcshooter]

There are many many one shot stops recorded. So to call it "unlikely" is difficult.

Really? Do you think more than half of SD shootings are one shot stops? 50%? 25%? Less than 25%?
One out of four is unlikely, in my book. And I bet it's a figure that's less than that.
It certainly isn't likely.

Extractor failures are pretty rare too (although more common than mag failures).

No. No way. Not even close. Not even remotely close.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by X-Rap: I liken this discussion to concrete forms, I was always asked if we had enough braces to hold the pressure of the concrete and my reply was usually " you never know when you have to many but you find out real soon when you don't have enough".

That's a pretty good way to put it--but you can calculate the pressure of the concrete, and you cannot predict what will happen in a shooting incident.

One thing that ammunition (or fuel or water) supply analysis has in common with civil engineering is the prudent application of safety factors.

Until we are in that gunfight we will never know and even then it will only be relative to that moment in time and I will always stand by my view that having the average amount of rounds needed even if it was written in stone is a stupid and dangerous proposition.

Yep. Enough is much better than not enough, and should you happen to have to defend yourself on more than one occasion, what was required in the first one will tell you nothing about what will be necessary in the second..

Or as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results....

 

[mljdeckard]

In 17 years of carrying, eight years of military service including as an armorer for a line armor unit and a deployment where all of us had sidearms, and extensive experiences with 1911s, Glocks, Sigs, Berettas, etc, I have never had an extractor break. I have had so few failures to eject I can't remember the last one, and I have never had one that wasn't remedied with a rack. Extractor failures really aren't even on my list of things to plan for.

 

[Bubba613]

Really? Do you think more than half of SD shootings are one shot stops? 50%? 25%? Less than 25%?
One out of four is unlikely, in my book. And I bet it's a figure that's less than that.
It certainly isn't likely.

Based on a previous post the likelihood of being involved in a shooting is .017%. The number of one shot stops is probably like 50% (stop in the sense that one round caused the incident to end). Even if it's 25% that makes it over 10,000 times more likely than being involved in one to begin with.
So you seem to be more worried about something that is 10k times less likely than something that is 10k more likely.
Where's the sense in that?

 

[Skribs]

The likelihood of being involved in a shooting and the likelihood of one shot stopping the encounter are irrelevant of each other. If I followed the statistics on that, I shouldn't even carry, because I'd have a 1/6000 chance of needing to defend myself.

 

[Bubba613]

The likelihood of being involved in a shooting and the likelihood of one shot stopping the encounter are irrelevant of each other.

They are highly relevant as they are cumulative.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: The likelihood of being involved in a shooting and the likelihood of one shot stopping the encounter are irrelevant of each other.

If one is for some odd reason doing some kind of actuarial calculation, such as figuring the probability of losing an officer, one could treat them together, but in terms of addressing the question at hand, you are entirely correct.

It's a matter of conditional probability. It's the kind of calculation one uses when establishing the requirement reliability for a back-up parachute or for a fire extinguisher. One starts with the assumption that the need to use the device has arisen, and disregards the probability of that happening.

In the discussion at hand, in properly assessing how many rounds one should carry, one would never take into account the likelihood of whether one might have to fire in the first place.

 

[Skribs]

They are highly relevant as they are cumulative.

In the sense of the overall chance of it occuring: yes. However, if you're looking at the situation of having to use your gun in self defense, you're already in that 0.017% ballpark and are looking at what will help you best in that situation.

 

[Bubba613]

That's the only way that it makes sense. You examine risk, and that examination is cumulative.
The chance of being in an encounter at all is less than 1%. If you are, the chance of needing more than one round is 25%. So one quarter of less than one percent is a far smaller chance than I take getting out of bed in the morning and I'm not going to worry about it.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Bubba613:That's the only way that it makes sense. You examine risk, and that examination is cumulative.

That depends upon what risk it is that you are trying to assess. If for some strange reason you are trying to quantify the probability that one will be attacked in a given time period and that one will not being able to get by with one round, and if your assumptions are correct, that's the way to do it.

If you are trying to assess how many rounds one would likely need should shooting be required, it is most certainly not.

And it is the latter question that is at hand. It is a very simple matter of conditional probability.

By the way, the time period for the stats was not mentioned.

People often look at per capita crime statistics and conclude that their risk of being victimized is one in whatever the numbers show. Let's forget for a moment that not everyone will face the same risk and understand one very basic thing: the resultant probabability is that of being attacked in one year. Those who survive face a risk the next year, and the next. One will likely be very surprised at how fast the cumulative probability mounts, and at the calculated likelihood that one who is, say sixteen years old today will be attacked at least once in his or her lifetime.

 

[Skribs]

Bubba, the risk we're assessing is if you need your gun, how many rounds are you likely to need?

By using the cumulative statistic, if the average number of shots per encounter is 4.8 and there is a 1/6000 chance you will need your gun, then you should carry 0.008 bullets. So by looking at cumulative analysis, you should carry an empty gun, or round up and carry a single barrel derringer.

Yes, the stats can be looked at cumulatively, but there isn't much application for the cumulative results. When you do have to draw your gun, it's not the 1/8000 chance of needing more than one bullet to stop an encounter (the cumulative total) that you're likely to be worried about, it's the 3/4 chance that one shot will not stop the encounter that will be on your mind.

 

[X-Rap]

It's no wonder these treads get locked up, they seem to turn into nonsensical hashing of meaningless statistics by some who obviously don't want or need to carry a gun for defense since they are statistically immune.
I bet this one is done by #65 about 60 more than it was worth.

 

[Kleanbore]

Lessons from the Street

The OP would really like to have some data to base something on:

I know we will not have a perfect set of data to work with. However I would be helpful to have some points of reference.

I have provided a link to one small set of data, and I have mentioned Lessons from the Street.

Believe me, it's worth buying.

No, it won't provide statistical data in any real depth, but it does provide adequate "points of reference" to explain Tom Givens' advice, "carry a real gun."

Tom also explains that detailed objective data on justifiable civilian shootings are not generally compiled. He also explains why data regarding shootings by on-duty police officers are not helpful. From memory:

• Civilians do not make traffic stops in which drug dealers or other felons may be encountered.
• Civilians do not go into bars to handle disturbances.
• Civilians do not respond to domestic disturbance calls.
• Civilians are not called upon to handle robberies or to make arrests.

Those are neither verbatim nor are they necessarily complete. But they should support the claim that civilians are much less likely to be under equipped than a police officer would be if they are not carrying a full size large capacity handgun such as a .40 caliber Beretta Model 96 with a total of forty five rounds on the belt.

So, what is "enough"? One more time, one cannot know that.

What is reasonable? Well, when I go to many rather tame places in the day time, I carry a J-Frame. When I go to ATMs or to the parking lots of certain big box stores that are near questionable areas or easily accessible by major arteries, I carry a double column semi auto or a .45--but nothing like what the police carry.

The list of places in the second category grew a little today after I became aware of two very recent armed robberies and car jackings in a nearby lot, only one of which was reported in the news.

And of course in those areas, round count would not be the key to survival--just a detail.

 

[Bubba613]

By using the cumulative statistic, if the average number of shots per encounter is 4.8 and there is a 1/6000 chance you will need your gun, then you should carry 0.008 bullets. So by looking at cumulative analysis, you should carry an empty gun, or round up and carry a single barrel derringer

Worked for Ronald Reagan.

I have provided a link to one small set of data,

That's the problem. Too small data set skews results to being unreliable. Additionally the use of "average" was troubling and not informative.

I am inclined to go with received wisdom, which dates back to the cowboy era. That was, one or two assailants at close distance over with 2-3 shots fired in all in about 5 seconds. Light conditions less than optimal with a lot of movement and confusion.

Anything else is the equivalent of getting struck by lightning.

 

[Skribs]

As the late Paul Gomez said, if you are even in a self defense shooting, you're so far to the right of the bell curve that statistics don't matter. That said, I don't think 2-3 shots is the "expected" anymore, especially if there are 2 assailants.

 

[allaroundhunter]

I am inclined to go with received wisdom, which dates back to the cowboy era. That was, one or two assailants at close distance over with 2-3 shots fired in all in about 5 seconds. Light conditions less than optimal with a lot of movement and confusion.

We are all allotted our own opinions, but if what you mean is that you will only train to fire 2-3 shots in the event of two assailants, then I must question the logic behind that decision. I am all for hoping for the best, but only after preparing for the worst.

For example, I don't hear about many gunfights at night during the cowboy era, but I just returned from a nighttime training session that involved both single and multiple assailants, at contact and intermediate ranges, at night. It is one of the worst situations that I could imagine myself being in, but I'd like to be prepared in the event that I find myself there. (And for the record, never did I fire only 2 rounds when there were multiple "assailants")

Sent from my HTC One X

 

[Kleanbore]

One can only speculate about how many hits it may take to quickly and effectively do it. One may do the trick, or it may not.

First, it would seem to me that any reasonable person would be very reluctant to count on the chance that it would.

Second, and more importantly, there are circumstances in which no one I know would even think about trying to find out.

If one is rushed by a violent criminal actor with an edged weapon ala the Tueller Drill, say as the attacker runs at him as he is getting into or out of his automobile, one will face a real challenge in terms of getting to one's weapon, firing, and trying to move aside or otherwise avoid being overcome.

It is possible that one lucky shot just may be all that is needed to stop the attacker, but who in his right mind would ever fire one shot and take the time to evaluate the result? I sure would not.

I would fire quickly--as quickly as possible; I cannot say for sure how many shots I would be able to get off, but I would darn sure not stop after one or two. Four might be a reasonable guess, but that's all it would be.

"One or two assailants at close distance over with 2-3 shots fired in all in about 5 seconds" would not describe it; rather those four shots on one assailant would have to take place in about a second, and then would come the time to worry about a second attacker. Should he happen to choose to attack, one would start firing at him.

As allaround hunter suggests, a little practical training will tell us more on this than received wisdom which dates back to the cowboy era.

Of course, the encounter may develop differently. But one cannot count on it.

 

[pockets]

If one is rushed by a violent criminal actor with an edged weapon

I just had a mental image of Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the role of Conan The Barbarian, accosting someone in a Walmart parking lot.

.

 

[Bubba613]

I would fire quickly--as quickly as possible; I cannot say for sure how many shots I would be able to get off, but I would darn sure not stop after one or two. Four might be a reasonable guess, but that's all it would be.

That sounds like a great set up for a plaintiff's attorney in a civil suit.
"And how many shots did you fire"
I don't know, as many as I could.
"How do you know the first one did not stop him?"
I don't. I didnt bother to look.

Yes, one should be prepared to use multiple rounds. One should also be prepared to quit when the threat is over.

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, one should be prepared to use multiple rounds. One should also be prepared to quit when the threat is over.

Of course. But pistol shots happen very fast under pressure. 4-5 rounds is less than a full second of shooting, and this would not be hard to explain to a jury. Defenders do not count rounds (usually having no idea how many shots they fired after the event) and they tend to fire as fast as possible until the threat is stopped -- emptying the mag is not uncommon.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Bubba613: That ["I would fire quickly--as quickly as possible; I cannot say for sure how many shots I would be able to get off, but I would darn sure not stop after one or two. Four might be a reasonable guess, but that's all it would be. "] sounds like a great set up for a plaintiff's attorney in a civil suit.

Very readily defensible.

If the assailant is closing on you with a blade at a rate of greater than fifteen feet per second, you will not have either the time or the ability to assess the effects of the first shot, or the second. You may well empty your firearm. Or not.

Regardless of what the first shot penetrates and damages, and you won't know that, he'll still be coming.

One should also be prepared to quit when the threat is over.

Agree.

I selected a scenario in which there would be no way to know when it was over in time to quit.

 

[coolluke01]

There's also no way to tell if the first shot or the last was the effective round. Unless of corse the attackers close enough to have powder burns.

Just going off a few of the gut feelings that have been shared. Approx 4 rounds per attacker. Highly unprovable but I think that's a good number to plan for. Assuming a 75% hit ratio you would land just less than almost 4 rounds for every 5 shots. If we think 2 assailants are possible, why would anyone think 5 or 6 rounds would be sufficient?
Say you take 5 shots at the first attacker and hit 4 and then have to move to the 2nd attacker would you wan't to have just one round left? Remember this guy just saw his accomplice shot down and he's still coming for you! That's determination! If the first volley doesn't deter then 2nd guy what makes you think one round will? I would like to have more for the 2nd that the first.

I think this discussion is helpful to help us think through just how effective the rounds we carry are. We have to make some assumptions as to how many rounds we think we may need, but we know how many rounds we carry and I think we have an idea of how many rounds it could take to stop a determined threat. This should help us evaluate what we carry.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by coolluke01: I think this discussion is helpful to help us think through just how effective the rounds we carry are. We have to make some assumptions as to how many rounds we think we may need, but we know how many rounds we carry and I think we have an idea of how many rounds it could take to stop a determined threat. This should help us evaluate what we carry.

Yes, so do I. Let me address it from a personal perspective:

My first handguns were six shot revolvers. One was effectively a five shot revolver, a Colt SAA.

In 1966, I bought a Smith and Wesson Model 39. Eight shots. Plenty for HD, I thought.

During next few decades, I saw absolutely no reason for a double column semi-automatic pistol. None.

As a matter of fact, my first CCW handgun was a five shot J-Frame. Why would I need more? I'm not going into combat!

Then I started learning a little something about handgun wounding effectiveness. And I started noticing more details in the police reports about the numbers of perps involved in local incidents. Maybe five just might be fewer than I should be carrying, I thought....

Then, a twelve-on-one mugging that occurred about two blocks from where I had been an hour before convinced me to look into something with a higher capacity. That, and a tempting promotion from S&W, put a 9MM M&P 9c on my belt. I load it with ten rounds.

And then someone recommended that I take an all day advanced defensive pistol shooting class, and the instructors strongly recommended a larger pistol. I didn't require much persuasion, because my hand really begins to smart after shooting the 9c quite a bit. It wouldn't do for an all day session.

I chose a steel frame 1911-pattern .45 auto with an officers' grip frame and a 3.9 inch barrel. I could shoot it all day long, but it wasn't ideal for the exercises we went through.

The real eye-opener for me was the speed at which we practiced making multiple hits on multiple steel targets at close range, and the reasons behind that particular exercise.

So--we have less effectiveness with handguns than many people assume; most probably, a very fast moving dangerous assailant at close range, with very little time to aim; and just as likely as not, more than one of them.

What we have to do is look at all the variables; learn about handgun effectiveness, shooting, and tactics; assess the risks; make our own risk management decisions; and above all, be willing to throw away our preconceived notions and cherished fantasies.

As previously mentioned, what I carry varies depending upon conditions.

I do hope that the discussion proves helpful to others. Thanks for starting it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

That's the only way that it makes sense. You examine risk, and that examination is cumulative...

The other half of any risk analysis it asking how hard it is to ameliorate the risk.

I carry a gun whenever I legally can. And if I'm already carrying a gun, I've never found it particularly burdensome to also carry a couple of extra magazines.

In any case, if someone is going to carry a gun, he's already decided that the miniscule risk of needing it is worth the bother. At that point, the minimal additional bother of carrying an extra magazine or two seems pretty inconsequential -- at least to me.