3-4 rounds average per gunfight. Still true?

Let's face it, any carry loadout is a compromise. What you decide to carry is largely based on what you wear, what you are comfortable carrying (weight wise), how you assess the potential threats around you, and what you feel safe with.

Most people will never need anything more than a couple shots...but then we get into odds and statistics again.
Most people do not get into running firefights, but it does occasionally happen.

It's a personal decision, made by no one but you.
 
TexasSeaRay

Jeff,

I was the butt of many jokes by my brother officers for carrying a second speed loader for my highway patrolman . How did we ever survive?

Good Luck & Be Safe, Bob
 
The reason I mention statistical training in these threads is the constant misuse of the average as a decision metric. There is also the inability for some folks to realize that incidents of any type are multicausal and may vary in characteristics.

Thus, we see a lot of nonsense about the decision rules used. Yes, you can plan for the base rate response and probabilitistically you will be fine. But, again and again - what cut off on the extremes to you take into account.

If you don't get this argument and only want to argue from anecdote - then you really do need at least familarity with research design.

Criminological stats are all over the place and very suspect. The folks who actual know stats know this quite well.

Again, for the civilian - the modal gun usage indicates the need for NO ammo.

It's like folks arguing about stopping power mechanisms with no knowledge of physiology at all. Maybe we should talk about how a COM shot disrupts the basic humors of the body as described the ancient Greeks.
 
Benzene wrote:
But let's say the ultimate does occur and a criminal is shot dead, and the police finds the shooter [the would-be victim] with a "Glock 27 (11 rounds), spare mag (10 rounds) and Centinial .38 (5 rounds.)" - an "arsenal" as an attorney might describe it to a Clinton-minded jury. Would not the "weaponry" injure the would-be victim who defended himself/herself?
Click to expand...

So you’d water down your choice of defense weapons just in case you end up with a Clinton jury??

That’s similar to the ideology of people that would rather have a lever action gun over an AK because it supposedly looks better in court.

Masaad Ayoob (spelling?) wrote about it enough, and he seems to know what he’s talking about.
Among many other cases, he explained one where a full auto weapon was used in self defense, with no ill effect at the time of the jury.
Don’t worry about the color of your gun, but worry about having a justified cause for the deadly force you used.

If you killed someone that was shooting at you, it doesn’t matter than you used an AK. If you shot the neighbor’s kid by accident, doesn’t matter that you used a 28” double barrel shotgun.
The only thing that COULD (depending on the judge and jury) work against you is your attitude and general reputation.

Say you carry two Glock 10mms, 10 spare mags, and a 2” S&W 44 magnum as backup, but your neighbors have only good things to say about you, it wont make a difference.
Same “arsenal” and neighbors can’t stand you and you can’t stop yourself form saying how much you want to kill people, then your situation isn’t very good.

Most important thing: Shoot in self defense, when you are in reasonable fear of your life. The gun you use? Use the best ones available, the ones that better your odds the most.

FerFAL
 
Scattergun Bob wrote:

Frankly, I try to stay out of these discussions, how many rounds and how many predators and how many reloads don't matter much. What really matters to me is to use what I have available with decisiveness and aggressiveness, and to keep thinking through the fight.
Click to expand...

That’s a smart statement: “ to use what I have available with decisiveness and aggressiveness”.
Might I add:" To make the best of what I have"?

I have a small keycahin LED that I love. Used it many times. 1000x better than No light at all, but for a while I’ve been carrying a small, single AA LED flashlight.
I travel in subway everyday and due to the current situation in my country they are not that dependable. People have found themselves walking in those tunnels when the subs have mechanical problems ... in total darkness..
The Keychain LED was , lets say “bare minimum” for most situations. It’s comfortable to carry of course, but I considered I was being a bit to "convenient" with myself, giving up greater advantage just because of comfort.

Same applies to guns.
A small snub is not only a beautiful piece of machinery.. its also VERY comfortable. Why, most people that carry them don’t even have to bother with a holster, they just drop it in a pocket.
That’s great. But be honest with the reasons of why you are choosing such firearm.
You said “to use what I have available with decisiveness and aggressiveness”.
Perfect. But what you have available will only be determined by what you bothered to take with you, let it be a nice AA LED when caught in the sub tunnel as it starts flooding, or a 15+1 round when some guys start shooting at me when I arrive home and open the garage door.
The “What I have available” part, is only up to you. If you bothered enough to go in such a direction, the armed citizen way, why choose the one that offers solutions just for a comfortable and convenient spectrum of possibilities?
To FerFAL I say enough you win, only a fool would take less ammo than was needed to win the firefight. So how many rounds is that SIR.
Click to expand...

I don’t know, wish I knew but I don’t.
Could be 1 , could be 5, 6 could be 15 or 1000 ( but I suppose that out of the question).. could be none.
If faith wanted it to be 6 and you only have 5, then my friend you are one round short of making through it alive.
Since we don’t know, what CAN we do?
The way I see it: Cover as much ground, as much possibilities as possible.
Without compromising accuracy and reliability, you can easily go with 15+1 rounds so that’s what I carry.
Others like single stacked 1911s better. You have less ammo in the mag but the caliber is pretty good, you still have 9 rounds if you use a 8 round +1, and the 1911 is arguably one of the best fighting guns out there, so I can see why people choose it.
The important thing ( at least to me) is just that, the reason. Not choosing a tool, one that I’m choosing to protect something as important as my life and the life of my loved ones, based on what the most comfortable gun out there, the one that bothers me the less.
Seems like a pretty bad priority to have.

FerFAL
 
Guys, Tom Givens, of Rangemaster, said it best.

"Keep in mind that when you hear it always happens to other people, well you ARE OTHER PEOPLE to everyone else!"
 
Criminological stats are all over the place and very suspect. The folks who actual kn

Mr Meyer,

I believe you made this statement, please direct me to your source, I subscribe to both wound ballistics journal and The FBI shooting statistics review. I find your statement suspect Sir.

"Criminological stats are all over the place and very suspect. The folks who actual know stats know this quite well."

I am waiting to be enlightened.
 
No you may not!

FerFAL,

You may not add to what I write, it is what it is. Just as I have not suggested that you alter what you believe, even though it is becoming old and has been a dead horse issue for 10 years, you may carry what you wish, you may define firepower as you choose.

You seem to believe that the tool that you have selected is the best for your needs, good for you. However, please remember "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to view every problem as a nail." What I think this means is that the gunfight will not be the way you want it to be, the gunfight will be the way it is. being prepared is great, being positive is wonderful, having 15+1 will only be part of the solution.

Maybe it is time to start a thread about the rest of the solution?

Good Luck & Stay Safe
 
Averages take in the extremes--both with re: to the number of shots fired, and the number of opponents one might face. Where shots are concerned, there's a 50% chance you'll need less than the average and the same chance for more. Common sense says plan for more, and Murphy says a lot more.

Louis Awberbuck said there's no such thing as an advanced gun fight, and I'd dare say--no such thing as an average one (to those involved), either.

That's not to say that you can't learn from studying other peoples gunfights, but I think the one that really matters is yours.:cool:
 
UF ROTC instructor

Years ago, there was an old MSG who was one of the Army ROTC instructors at UF. He was SF, VietNam vet, and told classes about the reality of surprise firefights.

Specific example, he was on point, ran into a VC point man. According to the MSG's story, both of them had their eyes about pop out, and both went full auto, M16 vs AK47. Both emptied magazines; neither was hit; both retreated for cover and reload.

If a Green Beret can fire 30 rounds at close range and still need more rounds, then...
 
Louis Awberbuck said there's no such thing as an advanced gun fight, and I'd dare say--no such thing as an average one (to those involved), either.
Click to expand...

Louis also won't have a primary carry gun that has less than 10 rounds in it, and always carries a backup, based on his experience in combat and instructing citizens who have been in civilian firefights.
 
I always kinda figured that if I ever had to really use my defensive firearm, it would be on a day when Lady Luck and Murphy both personally hated my guts.

pax
 
Scattergun - you continue to miss the point. It is that using the average only is too simplistic. You need to know the distributional shape of shots fired as it compares to various situations.

I can't give you that data because it doesn't exist in reliable form. The FBI shooting reviews, SOP, Wound Ballistic, etc. don't have that data. Their data is crude.

Then even if you had such, once again - folks need to decide on the basis of the extremes of the distribution and the probability of such.

That's the point, Sir.

When some one asks whether they should carry XY or Z because the average is some number, they, unfortunately, show their ignorance.
 
Scattergun - you continue to miss the point

Mr Meyer,

"Criminological stats are all over the place and very suspect." I am not missing the point, you say the words very suspect, I am calling upon you to supply the providence for those words or withdraw, Sir.

You obviously read only what you choose, please reread #18, I am in no Way defending NYPD stats with regard to civilian shooting.

I AM saying that officers lives and blood are represented by these numbers, if you choose to refute them, have cause and support, not bravado and "I think", show me a better way as I've asked or be gone!
 
You still miss the point. You attempt to hide your misunderstanding the point by now ranting about blood and lives as this was an issue of honor.

1. The issue is from the OP:

So, the question is pretty simple; do you think that it is wise to expect to shoot just 3 or 4 rounds, or should you have a weapon with more capacity just in case that average no longer holds truth, or you just happen to be one of those that don’t trust luck when it comes to falling within favorable odds.
It would be great if we could have a mature discussion here guys. Data from real gunfights would be good too.


2. My point is that just talking about the averages is insufficient for statistical reasons. If you don't know that much about statistics, that isn't my problem or a point of honor (a cheap rhetorical trick)

3. You need to know about the distributional shape and how we can separate out various types of incidents that might have different needs.

4. The SOP and other police sources don't have that data. I have read them. Go look at the SOP and find it. I read the criminological journals, gone to ASC conference and know the experts on civilian DGUs and they don't know a source for the type of sophisticated data. Don't you get that? It's very simple and not a question answered by blood and lives.

To conclude - the OP asked if we can make a decision based on the average. No, you can't. Your comments are irrelevant and a rant if you miss this point. The average is insufficient. You need to plan for the reasonable extremes.


Have a nice day but please try to understand what I said.
 
In general this question was answered before our time!

To FerFAL,

After rereading my last note to you, I decided to step back a bit. You asked a question in a certain light and I tried to explain to you how this data was gained. Is it relevant to us, this part of you question I did not answer, other that to say no it is not.

I said to you that the issue was old and stale, I did not take into account that perhaps it has not been a discussion you have been involved with over a great length of time, My Statement is drawn from 30 years of debate, and in my opinion the CZ-75 and the Browning Hi-power answered the question of firepower perhaps before our times. It in no way meant to imply that your thoughts were not relevant.

Please don't mistake my lack of information, "I never say what I carry" or brake the "never supply your potential enemy with anything, material or intelligence" rule as a indicator that I carry less out of some other convenience, NOTHING TAKES PRESIDENCE OVER MY SAFETY OR THE SAFETY OF MY CREW! It sounds like you also TAKE your safety seriously.

I share the quote below that I wrote 28 years ago with you only to say that I believe that we will live or not on decisions made before battle, your point is well and clear there. But, beyond that combat will be won or lost on other things besides what gun and how much ammo.

"Once the combat envelope wraps its' cold clammy arms around you, there is more than enough to think about besides how your weapon works, what condition of readiness IT IS IN, or where it shoots to."

I was hoping that this forum would be the place to have discussions outside of guns and ammo, "that just costs money", my constant interjection into this thread was frustration and never getting past guns and ammo.

Best to you, I'll leave you be.
 
No Glen you are Wrong

The report that I brought forward in #3 does not suggest that only 3 or 4 rounds were fired. It suggests that gunfights are fluid and that each shot string measure 3 or 4 shots. every time a lag occured such as a reload or movement it was measued as a new incident. I thought you knew what you were talking about!

What a foolish statement to make, "It's very simple and not a question answered by blood and lives. " This is all about blood and lives, numbers are there only because blood stains paper!

You still choose to avoid the issue of your self conceived reality being a better meter than the flawed data you are suspect of. You choose to ignore the the flame you wrote to ignite this discussion, it is not for me to explain this report and what it demonstrates to such a superior statistician as your self, but as I said in my second note IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CIVILANS AND THAT IS CLEAR.

I guess enlightenment is a ways away.
 
Scattergun,

When the Titanic went down, everyone said it was 'unsinkable'. So fewer lifeboats were carried, the captian delayed abandoning ship, and no one took it seriously till really started sinking!

I do read stats, but I don't rely on them totaly. Stuff happens and you or I might be the exception.

If I belive in averages then everyone ought to be 5 ft 9, right? That is the average.

So remember, "Keep in mind that when you hear it always happens to other people, well you ARE OTHER PEOPLE to everyone else!"
 
My vote!!!!!

Deaf Smith, you get my vote!!!!!! There are so many who lunge into intricacies of the physics of recoil, statistical analyses, etc. when in fact their knowledge is more often than not laughable.
 
IF half of shootings involved one shot and the other half involved 5 (just throwing out numbers), the average would be three. However, somone carrying 3 rounds would only be prepared for 50% of shootings. Now, that example is FAR too simple, but I think the point is clear. Judging by averages is not always wise. I do not know the data on how shootings are distributed. It could be that the VAST majority involve less than 3 rounds, but some shootings involve a high number of shots. It could be that a large percentage involve a larger number, but others only involve 1 shot. I do not know. Does anyone have that information?

Statistically, none of us is likely to need a firearm on any given day; yet so many people still carry one. Statistical outliers are what we are all trying to deal with.

I would carry whatever I felt prepared with, judging by the potential situations around me. I would probably carry more in a dangerous area than in a relatively safer area. It all comes down to the compromises we are willing to make, otherwise we would all be living in bomb shelters!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top