Capacity, Hit Rate, Multiple Assailants and some thoughts...

[JohnKSa]

Is there any data available to compare recent hit percentages with those from when revolvers were the primary issue weapons?

That's a good question, and I don't have an answer for it.

However, we can look at the "revolver-like" scenarios to see how a higher hit rate affects the outcomes.

If we look at the second chart and focus on the 5 and 6 shot traces, we see that it takes a hit rate substantially exceeding 50% before the chances of success rise to a 50/50 chance of success. If we want to attain a 70% success rate it takes a hit rate better than 65% with either 5 or 6 shots.

Charts and speculation don't mean jack in the Real World.

They can mean a great deal.

In this case, what the charts mean, in the real world is this:

If you have a 5 shot handgun and if your effective hit rate is 30% in a gunfight and if you are faced with 2 attackers that each require at least 2 hits each to be neutralized(stop attacking).

Then your chances of success (success=making 2 or more hits on each of your attackers) do not exceed 3.08%; your odds of failing are 97% or worse.

Your chances of success might actually be worse than 3% in the real world for any number of reasons that aren't foreseen by the relatively simple assumptions made to govern these calculations, but they can't be any better, within the bounds of the assumptions lined out in the previous paragraph.

But it's not intended as an accurate prediction model.

Correct. The charts give only a kind of "best case" outcome based on the stated assumptions.

One might be well served to define three hits as success.

The plots pretty much tell the whole story for the assumption that 4 hits are required, but I can run different scenarios now that I have the spreadsheet set up.

Making a new set of plots takes a bit of time, so I'm not offering to do that, but if anyone has some numbers that they want run based on a different number of hits required for "success", I'll be happy to run the numbers for some different scenarios.

 

[Nanuk]

Is there any data available to compare recent hit percentages with those from when revolvers were the primary issue weapons?

The last year the USBP carried revolvers the hit ratio was 80% the first year we carried semi auto's it was 20%. I have no idea what the latest scores are.

If you want to know how YOU are going to do, try an IDPA match. At least you will be doing more than square range tactics and bragging about your group.

I was very comfortable with a revolver in law enforcement for many years, as long as it was a magnum. It used to be that 1 357 hit equaled 3 from a 9mm or a 38 for effectiveness on the target.

It is interesting in the academic, but that is as far as it goes. Basing this theory of effectiveness on a mathematical formula based on statistics and assumptions is all fantasy warrior-ship.

 

[jason_iowa]

As a civilian or as civilian le I have never had to fire my gun and only in the last year have I had to draw it. I carry a single stack 45 most of the time + a 357 snub 1 extra mag for the 45. I really don't need the reload if I had an issue with the auto I would ditch it and go to the revolver. I feel completely comfortable with 5 or 6 rounds with up to 3 people. I have had hundreds of hours training combat shooting + idk how many hours of actual combat. At hand gun ranges I'm not worried about missing at all let alone 2/3rds of the time. Practice makes perfect.

 

[Shotgun693]

Avoid high crime locations, don't flash a lot of money, don't frequent prostitutes, don't do dope, don't go to seedy bars, don't brag about the vast gun collection at your home. Doing these things will do as much to keep you alive as carrying a gun of any type.
Oh yeah, if there's a Gang Member in your family throw them out of your house.

 

[JohnKSa]

Basing this theory of effectiveness on a mathematical formula based on statistics and assumptions is all fantasy warrior-ship.

The formula/calculations have no bearing on effectiveness in the sense of predicting a person's success in an actual gunfight.

There's really no way to take the results and turn them into some way of predicting how well someone will do in a gunfight the real world. That's because success for the purpose of the calculations is defined as making a certain number of hits and we all know that it takes more than simply making a certain predefined number of hits to insure success in a real-world gunfight.

What the charts effectively do is tell the probability that a defender will make 4 or more hits with a given hit rate probability and a given number of rounds available. They will provide that information reliably and accurately.

 

[jmortimer]

This article, one of the best ever, from the American Handgunner March-April 2002 by Massad Ayoob follows right along with this discussion and Lance Thomas is one of the United States' all-time heroes in my book.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_156_26/ai_82533205/
Started with a J-Frame and "evolved" from there.
"It is not lost on him that he has expended 60 percent of his ammunition to neutralize 50 percent of his antagonists."I still like five shot 38's as a general matter. I lived in Los Angeles Conunty at the time Mr Thomas was doing his fine work, and could not believe the politically correct cry-babies at the Los Angeles Times.

 

[Gats Italian]

I think the math crystallizes something I have had notions about for a time.

When I carried a 1911, it was on the assumption that the most likely scenario for its use was against the lone mugger or other threat.

But as time progressed I began to see that the miscreants in my city not only travel together in bands of four or more in public, they often appear together in the crime section of the newspaper for committing robberies and assaults in such numbers too.

That, and a while back I started shooting my handgun at rolling clays and realized instant incapacitation through shot placement on a dynamic target was going to be difficult to rely upon achieving.

So, I "upgunned" to a Beretta PX4 constant that packs 18 147 grain 9mm JHPs. Individually, the rounds are less "potent" on paper by many measures. Collectively, they provide more margin for shooter error than the first 9 .45ACP rounds used to.

 

[Sport45]

It's a good mathematical exercise that backs up the old saying, "You can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight."

 

[jason_iowa]

The only time I would take 9 mil over 357 or 45 is if it was coming from a select fire sub machine gun. Its a great carbine round and a pretty mediocre handgun round. I would not say you upped your stopping power by going up in round count and down in effectiveness. Especially in cold weather where I switch to fully jacketed and hardcast rounds as 9 mil just does not cut the mustard. We would switch from MP5s to M4s during the winter months due to penetration issues. I always carried an AK47 some of the guys would carry them in the winter and M14 or AK74 in the summer. High cap does you no good if your shots are not penetrating.

Ps people of varying size and clothing are NOT the same as ballistic gel do not trust any study based on gel penetration. Go shoot a pig it will tell you 10x more.

 

[seeker_two]

Two factors to consider:

1. What is the second BG doing while you are shooting the first BG? Running away? Attacking? Taking cover? Freezing in place? What do statistics show to be the most likely action taken?

2. How much time does it take to transition from BG to BG? As the number of BGs increases, the time b/t the first BG shot & the last BG shot increases. Will you have enough time to engage all the BGs, regardless of ammo available?

Fights are chaos systems. Predicting chaos systems is slightly less achievable than herding cats.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by seeker_two: What is the second BG doing while you are shooting the first BG? Running away? Attacking? Taking cover? Freezing in place?

That's the question, isn't it?

What do statistics show to be the most likely action taken?

Stats don't tell us anything.

How much time does it take to transition from BG to BG? As the number of BGs increases, the time b/t the first BG shot & the last BG shot increases. Will you have enough time to engage all the BGs, regardless of ammo available?

Some training will tell you that.

 

[Nanuk]

If you are faced with multiple attackers, start with the highest threat based on, proximity, weapon, aggression, ect. A bandit at 10 feet with a shotgun is more of a threat than the one at 3 feet with a club. Put one into each bandit based on threat, return to those that need more.

Why do most criminals follow that path? Mostly because they lack the drive and motivation to pursue a career in anything else. Crimes are committed based on the motivation level of the criminal, the opportunity. Very few criminals are motivated or loyal enough to stick around when their cohorts start dropping. That being said, it is why they hunt in packs and descend on the victim in packs.

While not all inclusive by any means I think the NRA's Armed Citizen is the only data base at all that tracks civilian defensive use.

 

[rgrundy]

The data doesn't take into consideration the fact that most people will hesitate to shoot another human being so if the BGs are sociopaths you are playing catch up already. With a little training you can put hits on multiple assailants in seconds. A good rule of thumb is to shoot them all high or in the head once, then go back and finish whatever is still a threat. If you start first there will be a 1.5 second lag before someone starts shooting back. If they start first you're in big trouble if they can shoot. If there is cover, run to it if it's close and you have a chance. It takes a high skill level to hit a moving target, you will be able to move 10 to 15 feet before they shoot and most gunshot wounds are not fatal. Better yet don't get into a gunfight.

 

[Gats Italian]

The only time I would take 9 mil over 357 or 45 is if it was coming from a select fire sub machine gun. Its a great carbine round and a pretty mediocre handgun round. I would not say you upped your stopping power by going up in round count and down in effectiveness. Especially in cold weather where I switch to fully jacketed and hardcast rounds as 9 mil just does not cut the mustard. We would switch from MP5s to M4s during the winter months due to penetration issues. I always carried an AK47 some of the guys would carry them in the winter and M14 or AK74 in the summer. High cap does you no good if your shots are not penetrating.

Ps people of varying size and clothing are NOT the same as ballistic gel do not trust any study based on gel penetration. Go shoot a pig it will tell you 10x more.

All handgun rounds are marginal stoppers. 9mm FMJ is more penetrative than is .45ACP FMJ. Each handgun round runs from potentially lethal to potentially ineffective. Given the true effectiveness of handgun rounds I'd rather have more at my disposal than less.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by rgrundy: The data doesn't take into consideration the fact that most people will hesitate to shoot another human being so if the BGs are sociopaths you are playing catch up already.

We are not discussing "data". John has presented some statistical calculations based on some assumptions

With a little training you can put hits on multiple assailants in seconds.

Good defensive pistol training does address the skills necessary to put multiple hits on multiple targets in seconds--very few seconds. Whether one can do that on a moving target in a stessful situation is another question.

A good rule of thumb is to shoot them all high or in the head once, then go back and finish whatever is still a threat.

I've never heard of any qualified instructor who recommends head shots.

If you start first there will be a 1.5 second lag before someone starts shooting back.

What? How does one "start first" and justify it?

A more realistic scenario is someone running at you, giving you perhaps 1.5 seconds to draw and shoot. And of course, it would be foolish to count on that first shot to keep you from getting cut.

If there is cover, run to it if it's close and you have a chance.

OK

It takes a high skill level to hit a moving target, you will be able to move 10 to 15 feet before they shoot and most gunshot wounds are not fatal.

Let's turn that one around. Your target is moving, perhaps from 25 feet away. Can you run backward faster than he can run forward?

You have to draw, fire, hit several times, and get out of his way in maybe one or two seconds.

 

[JohnKSa]

The data doesn't take into consideration the fact that most people will hesitate to shoot another human being so if the BGs are sociopaths you are playing catch up already.

Correct. There are any number of reasons why the probabilities listed might actually turn out to make success (success=2 or more hits on each opponent) seem MORE likely than it really is.

The only time I would take 9 mil over 357 or 45...

The calculations do not take caliber into account at all. They only assume the following:

1. Only a certain number of shots available.
2. A hit rate probability.
3. Success = 2 or more hits per opponent.
4. The defender uses his rounds to maximum effect (e.g. doesn't shoot all of his rounds at the first opponent if he hit him with the first two.)
5. The defender is able to shoot all his rounds in the encounter.

If you are faced with multiple attackers, start with the highest threat based on, proximity, weapon, aggression, ect. A bandit at 10 feet with a shotgun is more of a threat than the one at 3 feet with a club. Put one into each bandit based on threat, return to those that need more.

That's good advice. The calculations don't take that into account. They assume that if you make 2 hits on an opponent that he's neutralized regardless of what order or strategy you use to distribute those hits. It is simplistic, but that's because the results are not intended to be a high-fidelity simulation of a gunfight--it would be impossible to provide that kind of information with a simple probability calculation.

The calculations results provide insight into how hard it is to make multiple hits on multiple opponents given a certain number of shots and a given hit rate probability. Period.

That, and a while back I started shooting my handgun at rolling clays and realized instant incapacitation through shot placement on a dynamic target was going to be difficult to rely upon achieving.

Exactly. Introducing motion into the target is one of the reasons that people don't hit the target as often in a gunfight as they do standing in front of a stationary target at the range. Another is that during a gunfight there's someone shooting at them. Another is that during a gunfight they may be moving themselves to avoid being shot. Another is that they may have to adopt unorthodox shooting positions to take advantage of cover. I'm sure there are others.

It's important for people to understand that the fact that they can stand still in front of a stationary paper target and put 5 rounds into it with 100% consistency doesn't translate to being able to make the same hit rate during an event as dynamic and stressful as a gunfight.

 

[Glenn Dee]

If I ever get into a shooting, I'll very quickly go over the charts, graphs, and numbers. Then remembering all the Massad Ayoob articals, and taking into consideration the Marshal-Sanow study I'll draw my firearm and deftly perform a mozambique drill....

 

[rgrundy]

Sorry,I believe I was trained in the wrong venue. Head shots were okay if there was a possibilty of the attackers wearing vests. Moving targets are definitely hard to hit so I would suggest some Bianchi (48 shots at a mover that approximates how fast a man can run) practice at the very least.

 

[Sulaco2]

Rats can't remember the Tom Cruise movie where he is the hit man cruising around in a taxi in LA and gets into a confrontation in a subway at o-dark thirty with two muggers attempting to rob him? That scene in the movie about 3 seconds worth of gun fire is some of the most awesome visuals on handling a multi BG attack I have ever seen..... Yes I know its a movie but the gun handling against multi BG.s covers some of the debate here. Granted its a visual on a really CQB situation but I remember being trained to respond just that way...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Basing this theory of effectiveness on a mathematical formula based on statistics and assumptions is all fantasy warrior-ship.

The formula/calculations have no bearing on effectiveness in the sense of predicting a person's success in an actual gunfight.

No, it isn't a fantasy warrior-ship and such exercises do not readily relate to any sort of predictive realities for any one given situation. Simply put, it is unreasonable to assume that based on historic data of autonomous events (which is basically what is being assumed by the summary hit rate considerations) that whatever pattern they show in the past will necessarily predict the outcome of a given autonomous incident occurring now or in the future, but can be accurate in predicting a pattern for such events in the future. Looked at another way using medical information, if a given type of cancer has a 50% mortality rate, just because you get it doesn't mean you have a 50% chance of dying from it, though people may continue to die from it at a rate of 50%. It very well may be that when discovered quickly, historically folks recover 99% of the time and when discovered late that they die 99% of the time from it. So while the average death rate for the particular cancer may be 50% for the entire population, the entire population trend indicated isn't really even a reasonable predictor of the rate at which an individual may die from it. We actually went through something like this with my dad and his doctors. In his case, the cancer kills folks in the first year after discovery 90% of the time. As it turned out, about 85% of the time when discovered, the patients were already terminal. Pop's was discovered very early, within a 3 month window and he got the correct treatment. So while the 90% fatality rate in the first year and 98% fatality within 5 years sounded horrible, it is just the trend of the overall population and not indiviually specific.

Trend analyses provide you information about trends more so than about individual specific events. It may look like that for a given event there is X% likelihood of occurring and that would be correct for a trend perspective, but not necessarily correct from a specific event perspective.

Assuming the data are 100% accurate of real life, missing from the equation is also the speed of incapacitation. Over the years, we have discussed several events where mortally wounded people still managed to kill other people before dying. I will see if I can find it, but I seem to recall a midwest cop who was victorious, but killed in a gunfight with multiple bad guys (2, I think). One badguy was killed and the other seriously wounded and handcuffed by the cop. This was pre-ballistic vest and it was winter. He did not realize he had been shot, thought he was fine, had told people he was unharmed, and collapsed while talking with late arriving officers about the event. So he was incapacitated and incapacitated by 2 wounds which were inflicted early in the fight and after suffering the wounds, killed one guy, wounded and handcuffed the other, and then stood around talking about the event.

It is for reasons such as that that the Secret Service trains its protection detail to run their hands over the President after a shooting as the person shot (such as Reagan) doesn't always know it. Of course in Reagan's case, the hand inspection missed the wound the first time which delayed Reagan getting to the hospital. Reagan did feel pain, but thought was from being essentially dogpiled into the limo with him on bottom.

Anyway, so time to incapacitation is also significant and extremely difficult to model for things other than shots producing immediate and significant high CNS damage.