Is a J frame enough?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by larbear: Shot placement and accuracy are paramount. If either is in question carry a higher capacity auto.

Anyone who has ever availed himself or herself of any kind of realistic training that simulates a violent attack with any reasonable degree of fidelity knows that both shot placement and accuracy are always in question.

Also always in question is how the attacker will react when hit.

...along with how his accomplice(s) will react to the sound of shots fired.

 

[Fiv3r]

In Post #25, Skibs points out that, with a 30% hit probability and the need to score four hit sin total on however many assailants, five shots will not do the trick 96.9% of the time.

But if you want to challenge that and "play statistics", vary the hit rate and the number of hits required and do the math yourself.

I've done enough of that t cause me to switch to a higher capacity carry piece.

A viable option would be a "New York Reload."

I'm talking about the statistics that on any given day, I am more likely to walk out in front of a bus or choke on a chicken bone than I am to be assaulted and be required to pull my firearm, let alone fire it. I'm not saying that bad things don't happen and that people shouldn't be armed and prepared.

I just don't get into debates on needed shots. They are too clinically academic and hypothetical. They don't factor in a lot of extraneous variables. I think they are interesting tools and valuable in choosing what one feels they need to carry, but in the grand scheme of things, I feel well enough armed with 5 rounds in a stumpy .357 with 5 more in my pocket. What if I need a sixth shot? What if I needed an 18th shot? What if potential attackers don't really find my mostly athletic nearly 200lb frame a soft enough target to mess with anyway? What if they are on PCP? What about if I pull my 5 shot gun and they wet their pants? What if I pull my 17 round gun and I wet MY pants (I've never been in a firefight. who knows?)? What if 6 guys corner me and I blow the brains out of the first one with my snub nose? Do they stick around to do the math or are they birds on a wire?

While I know that none of us have a crystal ball, I think that using even a little bit of logical probability of the potential real threats in the world, being armed with SOMETHING that I know how to use well, bringing the right gun for the job (LCP walking the dog. 9mm high capacity with a couple mags when I go downtown after dark), and keeping my head on a swivel will probably, in the mathematical sense, going to keep me out of most trouble.

I don't really feel warm and fuzzy with 7 shots of .380 as I do with 5 of .357. I PREFER a 17 round 9mm, but there are just some days when I tempt fate and leave the house with less firepower.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Fiv3r: I'm talking about the statistics that on any given day, I am more likely to walk out in front of a bus or choke on a chicken bone than I am to be assaulted and be required to pull my firearm, let alone fire it.

Irrelevant.

While I know that none of us have a crystal ball, I think that using even a little bit of logical probability of the potential real threats in the world, being armed with SOMETHING that I know how to use well, bringing the right gun for the job (LCP walking the dog. 9mm high capacity with a couple mags when I go downtown after dark), and keeping my head on a swivel will probably, in the mathematical sense, going to keep me out of most trouble.

I used to look at it the same way; I pocketed a J-Frame when I went to the local grocery store during the daytime, and I strapped on a Smith and Wesson M&P 9c when I ventures somewhere I thought less safe.

But my reasoning was flawed, and someone pointed that out in a discussion here on this very subject. The real issue is conditional probability.

As strambo point out in Post #48,

The odds of being in a violent situation are completely divorced from the severity of a violent situation. Should you find yourself in a violent confrontation, that the odds of it happening were 1/1 million, now have no bearing whatsoever on the best tool with which to handle it.

That is a very basic tenet of risk management.

I have to admit that I was more than a little embarrassed. I had a lot of experience in that field in a prior life. And I used to teach the subject.

 

[Old Fuff]

They’re all kinds of gunfights and criminal attacks involving guns. Clearly there is no such thing as a typical one.

But that said, they’re the Hollywood kind (movie and TV), combat game kinds, and last-but-not-least, the real kind.

The link below is an example of the real kind. It actually happened, when a 16 year-old and two buddies tried to pull a stick-up at a filling station. Watch it and learn, but also remember its only one example.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6e_1392219642

My point? Learn from what actually happens, and you shouldn’t have much trouble finding examples in this day of security video cameras placed almost everywhere.

 

[Gun Master]

.380 Pop Up Barrel?

The thing about small, LIGHT guns is they get dropped into a pocket when the bigger, heavier stuff gets left at home.
I have one of everything...but the gun I carry most is my Beretta Tomcat .32ACP, and second to that is my Kahr P380. I've got an S&W 642 PRO coming and it will almost certainly become part of my everyday carry.
I own bigger guns...which I carry in my car as a "backup" so to speak.
IF I want to get "strapped" I carry my S&W M500 with four spare speed loaders. I have supreme confidence in both my ability to shoot the .500 Magnum VERY WELL, and the ability of a bullet delivering the equivalent of a .308 rifle to provide an immediate cessation of hostilities.

I like the "pop up" barrel, and wish they made it in a .380. I own a Taurus P22, which has this same curious feature. Some people think .380 is too powerful for this configuration. Maybe this can be tested in the future.

 

[boricua9mm]

Having been in a violent encounter armed with nothing more than a 5-shot J-Frame, I can say that for me the answer is NO. When someone threatens my life and there is am imminent chance of something happening, my heart rate increases and adrenaline kicks in. Under those physical conditions, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to perform 100% the same way I do in practice/training. The software/programming is there, but the hardware (me) is what's glitchy.

In my scenario did not have to pull the trigger, but I was haunted with the thoughts of what happened if I had missed 1,2, or 3 times. Would the remaining shots have been enough to deal with the threat? What if his buddy showed up right afterwards with a surprise for me?

This happened to me 10 years ago, and I've been carrying a G26 ever since.

I carry a 3" K-frame .357 when I'm hiking in the woods because I like having the horsepower for dealing with potential problem critters. Ironically, it has been my experience that having a higher capacity is most beneficial for problems with 2-legged vermin.

 

[Old Number 8]

I'm not saying it's enough, but I'll currently take my chances with my 640-1 Pro Series loaded with five moon-clipped 357s of my choice.....There might have been room for debate as to my gun of choice except for the following reasons: 1) S&W chose to install Trijicons on the 640; 2) Since I have no promise that both hands will remain uninjured in the fight, I trust the 640'll fire, regarless of my grip, and I'm accurate with her when firing weak-handed; 3) More-positive ejection of all 5 moon-clipped cases, possibly allowing for a (practiced) re-load.

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

My "all the time" gun is a nickel-plated Model 37. It's either in a pocket or belt holster or (very rarely) in an ankle holster. My elder daughter is now in possession of my Taurus 85SSUL which used to balance the Model 37 when I thought one gun (of whatever type) wasn't enough. If heading out of the neighborhood, I generally carry a 3 inch Model 13 with the Model 37. At work, I pocket carry the Model 37 to back up the Model 686 that rides in my duty holster.

On the occasions when I just carry the Model 37, I am not preparing for a firefight; I am prepared for a last ditch effort to save my life. Guess I need to either get my Taurus back from my daughter or buy me another Airweight J.

ECS

 

[Kleanbore]

In my scenario did not have to pull the trigger, but I was haunted with the thoughts of what happened if I had missed 1,2, or 3 times. Would the remaining shots have been enough to deal with the threat? What if his buddy showed up right afterwards with a surprise for me?

That brings in two of the variables in the analysis to which strambo linked.

Both are unknowns:

1. How may hits vs how many misses?
2. How many attackers, and what will the other ones do?

The third, of course--how many hits will be required to stop an assailant--is also anyone's guess.

JohnKSa's statistical exercise, to which strambo provided a link, was based on the following assumptions:

• A thirty persent hit rate; you can vary that and run the numbers yourself.
• Two shots per assailant reauired to stop; you could vary that one, too. Or if you uwanted to, you could insert a probablistic assumpion, but that would compicate the analysis considerably.
• The nimber of total hits, base on the above and on the assumpion regardign the number of determined attackers not disuaded by gunfire aimed at the others. You can vary that one, too.

With that analysis, John showed, convincingly to some of us, that with those assumptions, five shots is probably not a prudent capacity with which to defend against two determined attackers. Even adding one more round is quite a bit better, as Colt used to advertise. Seven, better still. I happen to like eight.

There was another very key assumption. Of necessity, John also assumed that the defender would immediately stop shooting at the first assailant when the first assailant had been hit twice. Is that realistic? Would you be likely to do that? Would you be reasonably able to do that if you wanted to?

Watch a Tueller drill, and watch the defender fire at the assailant. Can he or she reasonably be expected to stop shooting at a charging attacker after firing just the shots are actually necessary to stop, and no more?

I can visualize firing four or five quick shots as the attacker moves into stabbing distance, and as I try to move out of his way. That's what you see some of the trainers do on Personal Defense TV.

Considering all of that, I concluded some time ago, after having carried a J-Frame for some time, that five shots do not provide the best bet.

There are two ways to have more rounds at hand without having to reload: carry a larger capacity semi-auto, or carry two snubby revolvers.

If I were to opt for the latter, I would probably elect a couple of Colts, for the simple reason that the J-Frame trigger is difficult for me. Others may find otherwise.

 

[Gun Master]

J Frame Enough ?

That brings in two of the variables in the analysis to which strambo linked.

Both are unknowns:

1. How may hits vs how many misses?
2. How many attackers, and what will the other ones do?

The third, of course--how many hits will be required to stop an assailant--is also anyone's guess.

JohnKSa's statistical exercise, to which strambo provided a link, was based on the following assumptions:

• A thirty persent hit rate; you can vary that and run the numbers yourself.
• Two shots per assailant reauired to stop; you could vary that one, too. Or if you uwanted to, you could insert a probablistic assumpion, but that would compicate the analysis considerably.
• The nimber of total hits, base on the above and on the assumpion regardign the number of determined attackers not disuaded by gunfire aimed at the others. You can vary that one, too.

With that analysis, John showed, convincingly to some of us, that with those assumptions, five shots is probably not a prudent capacity with which to defend against two determined attackers. Even adding one more round is quite a bit better, as Colt used to advertise. Seven, better still. I happen to like eight.

There was another very key assumption. Of necessity, John also assumed that the defender would immediately stop shooting at the first assailant when the first assailant had been hit twice. Is that realistic? Would you be likely to do that? Would you be reasonably able to do that if you wanted to?

Watch a Tueller drill, and watch the defender fire at the assailant. Can he or she reasonably be expected to stop shooting at a charging attacker after firing just the shots are actually necessary to stop, and no more?

I can visualize firing four or five quick shots as the attacker moves into stabbing distance, and as I try to move out of his way. That's what you see some of the trainers do on Personal Defense TV.

Considering all of that, I concluded some time ago, after having carried a J-Frame for some time, that five shots do not provide the best bet.

There are two ways to have more rounds at hand without having to reload: carry a larger capacity semi-auto, or carry two snubby revolvers.

If I were to opt for the latter, I would probably elect a couple of Colts, for the simple reason that the J-Frame trigger is difficult for me. Others may find otherwise.

Point # 1: We cannot predict the future.

Point # 2: We do not know how many assailants there will be (which also refers back to # 1).

Point # 3: Think of as many scenarios possible, and see if you cache is complete. Supplement as necessary (within your budget). Get improvisational .

Point # 4 : To carry beats not carrying.

Point # 5 : Choose the gun, cal./mm, size, etc. that suits "your" needs.

Bona Fortuna !

 

[Kleanbore]

^^^^^

Yep

 

[2ndamd]

Statistics do play a role in decision making.
The likelihood you will need more than five shots in a gun fight, is the same that your airplane will crash.
Have there been times people needed more than five shots? YES
Have planes ever crashed? YES
Do you still feel safe flying???
That question is for each of us to answer ourselves.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 2ndamd: The likelihood you will need more than five shots in a gun fight, is the same that your airplane will crash.

If you mean that you think the likelihood that you will need more than five shots if you do have to fire your gun, which is of course the only relevant calculation, I would be interested in knowing your assumptions regarding hit rate and the number of hits you would need.

Strambo has already shown that, with a total of four hits required (not unreasonable) and a 30% hit rate (also not unreasonable), the likelihood of needing more that five shots is awfully close to unity--too close for my blood at 97%, anyway.

And if you only need to hit twice, you're still at even-steven.

Do your own calculations. Set the likelihood of success at just under 100%, assume one variable, and solve for the other, and vary the first number a few times.

Otherwise, see this. It's a real eyopener. With a 70% hit rate (on which I would not bet) and a total of four hits required to stop however many assailants, you still have about two out of four chances of needing more than five.

And that assumes that you stop shooting the first assailant immediately after hitting him twice. I don't think I would be very likely to do that.

Do you still feel safe flying???

Yes, because I am safe flying.

That question is for each of us to answer ourselves.

How safe one feels regarding one's ability to defend oneself is not the question.

I felt OK carrying a five-shot Airweight until a discussion of the subject came up over on The Firing Line, where John first posted his analysis.

Of course, how safe one really is depends on a whole lot more than the number of shots in his firearm.

 

[shafter]

Any gun is enough.. until it isn't. The point is that you'll never know until the encounter is over.

A profound statement that should be enough to answer any gun debate.

 

[couldbeanyone]

Kleanbore, I asure you that you are not "safe" flying. People die doing it on a regular basis. You could totally avoid that risk by not flying, yet you still fly, hmmm. In fact, you are not truly safe doing anything. After all, a meteor could hit your house as you sit in your easy chair.
If some people decide to be only ready for a single attacker, instead of your envisioned multiple attackers, that is their call. If someone wants to count on attackers giving up when the firing starts, that is also their choice of a calculated risk.
I know this is now your holy grail issue since your "epiphany", But everyone gets to decide where to set their own threshold of risk whether you like it or not. Thanks to you everyone is now fully informed. So, perhaps you could just cool your jets just a touch. Just my opinion as of course you are free to do as you wish like everyone else.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"I carried a J for awhile. Lost confidence when I started shooting it past 7 yards."

If your assailant is 7 yards away you are better off running faster than he does than shooting.... Tueller drills notwithstanding.


Willie

.

 

[Gun Master]

J Frame Enough or Need More Stuff ?

Kleanbore, I asure you that you are not "safe" flying. People die doing it on a regular basis. You could totally avoid that risk by not flying, yet you still fly, hmmm. In fact, you are not truly safe doing anything. After all, a meteor could hit your house as you sit in your easy chair.
If some people decide to be only ready for a single attacker, instead of your envisioned multiple attackers, that is their call. If someone wants to count on attackers giving up when the firing starts, that is also their choice of a calculated risk.
I know this is now your holy grail issue since your "epiphany", But everyone gets to decide where to set their own threshold of risk whether you like it or not. Thanks to you everyone is now fully informed. So, perhaps you could just cool your jets just a touch. Just my opinion as of course you are free to do as you wish like everyone else.

I agree. Kleanbore has the right to express his opinion, but participants don't have to accept his conclusions, outright. He appears to be very zealous and presents lengthy possibilities based on a high degree of speculation.

The charts he uses as "documentation" seem to have no factual information, and are based on unfounded assumptions and formulas for number of rounds needed, possibilities of hits, number of assailants, etc., et al, ad infinitum.

Kleanbore is to be commended for his wishing to supply us good info for our self defense.

On the other hand, I could envision being so encumbered by many guns, excessive rounds, and other heavy ordnance, that we wouldn't be able to dodge that Mack Truck approaching us.

 

[MikePGS]

One of the best threads I've read on here in a while.

The link provided to the statistics regarding shot probability is a real eye opener to me.

I think a large issue is that 99% of the time a cap gun would be enough since the odds of being attacked (for the most part) are pretty low. That being said the most comfortable firearm to carry makes complete sense due to the fact that it probably won't ever be fired against an assailant. However if an attack ever does occur, (the thing that carrying is designed to protect against in the first place), I don't have 100% confidence that 5 shots of .38 special would do the trick.

 

[David E]

So--how well do you do when the target is moving in changing directions at a speed of 5 to 7 yards per second?

How quickly can you do that...

...while you are attempting to get behind something or out of his way?

If you are shooting him for the first time at 5 feet, how do you expect to stop him before he does you in...

..and how many shots do you think you will have to put into him?

Keeping in mind that all handgun calibers suck, tell me what practical handgun, caliber and capacity would pass this improbable scenario?

If you only have X amount of time to make telling hits, then where does capacity come into play?

 

[David E]

I like the "pop up" barrel, and wish they made it in a .380. I own a Taurus P22, which has this same curious feature. Some people think .380 is too powerful for this configuration. Maybe this can be tested in the future.

It's called the Beretta 86

 

[Skribs]

To sum up the idea Kleanbore, Strambo and I have mentioned, look at this made-up scenario:

In neighborhood A, you have a 25% chance of being attacked.
In order to defend yourself against an attack, you will need 8 rounds of capacity.
Therefore, since you have a 25% chance of being attacked, you should carry a gun with 2 rounds of capacity or greater.

This is where the logic stops making sense. Like I said, if you need 5 shots or less, the J frame is enough. That means that if you weren't attacked, it was enough. If you are attacked and simply having a weapon stops the attack, it was enough. If you are attacked and simply firing the weapon stops the attack, it was enough. If you are attacked and need 5 or less shots to put the BG down, then it was enough. If not...then it's not enough. But, there's also the chance that the bigger duty weapon you choose with 17 rounds isn't enough.

I also know I am less likely to carry a reload with my revolver than I am with my auto. That's a factor as well.

 

[Gun Master]

Tip Up .380 ?

It's called the Beretta 86

Thanks. It looks like a cool gun and a nice choice. I was hoping for a .380 more the size of a Tom Cat, to slip in my pocket. The 86 is a little longer in the barrel and OA length than I would like, but I might try one someday.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by David E: Keeping in mind that all handgun calibers suck, tell me what practical handgun, caliber and capacity would pass this improbable scenario?

So--how well do you do when the target is moving in changing directions at a speed of 5 to 7 yards per second?

How quickly can you do that...

...while you are attempting to get behind something or out of his way?

If you are shooting him for the first time at 5 feet, how do you expect to stop him before he does you in...

..and how many shots do you think you will have to put into him?

None, of course!

Someone had observed how well he could hit small stationary targets, and went on to say that at the five foot distance he thought most likely, he couldn't miss.

 

[strambo]

People are also over-emphasizing the effectiveness of perfect hits from a handgun round.

In another thread someone (thank you Strahley) linked a great article about a gunfight a cop was involved in where he had a phenomenal combat hit rate with a high capacity G21 .45 ACP...and it didn't mean squat!

http://www.policeone.com/police-hero...r&nlid=6198334

He connected 14/33, (42%) some of the 33 he was trying to skip them off the pavement...his hit rate when aiming at the perp directly was likely over 50%, outstanding in a run and gun firefight. He was also an instructor, SWAT cop and sniper, shooting a full size gun. Way above the average citizen/LE and soldier in terms of skill.

Most germane to this discussion is he scored 6 lethal torso hits including 1 through the heart and the perp kept on fighting. the fight only ended when he got some head shots in. It lasted 58 seconds or so.

The human body has at least 7-30 seconds of conscious voluntary control after being hit in the heart. Plenty of time to beat/stab/shoot you to death even if you put 2x lethal rounds in them right at the start.

The only way to reliably drop an attacker instantly is with a hit to the CNS (brain, high spine), the odds of that in a gunfight are slim.

So, statistical hit rate/capacity analysis aside, no matter how many times you place lethal hits on them, biologically they are a threat until they collapse. Better have a plan B.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Gun Master: The charts he [Kleanbore] uses as "documentation" seem to have no factual information, and are based on unfounded assumptions and formulas for number of rounds needed, possibilities of hits, number of assailants, etc., et al, ad infinitum.

I do not use those charts as "documentation".

They are simply an analysis. You can vary the assumptions to your heart's content and run the numbers yourself.

The charts were developed by JohnKSa, who is on the staff at The Firing Line and who is a member here, for his own purposes during a discussion on TFL similar to this one, and he found them eye opening. So did I.

And that's all they really are. They put things in perspective. They show the range of possibilities.

He assumed a 30% hit ratio. Don't like it? Use another number. John's charts show the effect of varying the assumption, as long as you stick with four hits in total. But you could vary that, too, if you want to. And there are data to support the idea that 30% is at least reasonable.

But one could validate hit rates through some extensive FoF simulation, if one really wanted to have an idea about what one might expect.

He assumed the need to hit each assailant twice. The number may be one, two, three, four...Try any number you like. Frankly, I don't have any idea at all about how to choose a good number. But I should think that two would not represent a worst case assumption. What do you think?

He assumed that the defender would stop shooting after two hits. Personally, I think that that's a best case assumption. Could you stop then? Would you? I can easily imagine firing four shots in rapid succession, as one sees on televised Tueller drill exercises.

He assumed two assailants. The likelihood of that is supported by data that have been provided in other discussions here. But there might be one attacker. John addressed that possibility also.

He also assumed that a second assailant would have to be shot. That may be worst case, because the second one may turn tail. But he may not realize what has happened, or he may have no way to escape without the defender's car, or he may be so close that he feels that pressing the attack represents his best chance, or he may be using meth, and the defender may have to shoot him, too. What would you prepare for?

Another assumption he made was that the defender would survive to be able to use the ammunition in his gun. You could model different assumptions on that count, but it would significantly complicate the analysis. I think it reasonable that the defender's survival chances would decline very significantly before he could get off 17 shots, for example.

All of that was discussed ad nauseum in the thread to which strambo provided the link, and in several other long discussions as well, here and on TFL. This is a perennial subject.

Choose your own assumptions and run the numbers yourself, if you don't like John's charts.

Then make your own conclusions.

I ended up carrying 10+1, but mind you, I did not base that on any expectation of having to fire 11 shots. It's just that I like a margin of safety, and that I do not like the idea of being left with an empty gun or standing around reloading.