Capacity, Hit Rate, Multiple Assailants and some thoughts...
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
Two other factors: time and the defender's capability.
Time: you build in no assumption of the dispersal of assailants nor moving targets after the first discharge.
Capability: civillian shooters, last I saw, were seven (7) times more likely to hit their target than police. Cops are notoriously bad shooters (I can tell you this is quite true, and they are actually very dangerous) -- essentially failures at a core responsibility of their duty.
There are many examples but one famous one, especially to the Left, is that of Amadou Diallou (sp?). Four of the elite NYPD Street Crimes Unit fired 41 times (two emptying 16 rounds each) and he was hit 19 times at the top of the stairs into an apartment building from the bottom of them. 11 times in the legs. "Contagious shooting." There are others even MORE lopsided.
Time: you build in no assumption of the dispersal of assailants nor moving targets after the first discharge.
Capability: civillian shooters, last I saw, were seven (7) times more likely to hit their target than police. Cops are notoriously bad shooters (I can tell you this is quite true, and they are actually very dangerous) -- essentially failures at a core responsibility of their duty.
There are many examples but one famous one, especially to the Left, is that of Amadou Diallou (sp?). Four of the elite NYPD Street Crimes Unit fired 41 times (two emptying 16 rounds each) and he was hit 19 times at the top of the stairs into an apartment building from the bottom of them. 11 times in the legs. "Contagious shooting." There are others even MORE lopsided.
orionengnr
New member
Yep.You noticed that too.
This is where the rubber meets the road for me. In assuming worst-case scenarios, if there are two or more assailants, they are not going to stand around waiting their turn. If I am lucky enough to get off the first shot before the BG(s), there is no reason to believe I will get off an unchallenged second...let alone the first 13-15.
For that reason, more than any other, I am more focused on carrying what I shoot best, and making those first shots count.
And there you go. Frequent practice with something I shoot well is far more productive and confidence-inspiring than a large capacity and a lousy trigger and a marginal caliber.
YMMV, and probably will.
With luck, this will be an intellectual exercise for most of us, for the rest of our lifetimes.
If my luck runs out, I have made my bed, and will lie in it.
Best regards, Rich
aphdmansoc
New member
Good thread...lots to think about which reminded me of Wild Bill Hickcock. He practiced a lot, carried two guns, kept fresh ammo in his guns, claimed accuracy more important than speed but speed is important. Old adage, aim small, miss small. And his mindset was to get the advantage - did this by correctly assessing threat and willingness to use all the force necessary to win. Seems to me Wild Bill has a lot to offer us. Skills, mindset, and equipment.
A modern Israeli warrior, Eugene Socket, would be on the side of carrying more ammo. Ammo is good, skills are good, proper mindset is good, having the right weapon(s) with you are good. Imagine putting all this together with a little bit of luck should increase one's chance to survive.
A modern Israeli warrior, Eugene Socket, would be on the side of carrying more ammo. Ammo is good, skills are good, proper mindset is good, having the right weapon(s) with you are good. Imagine putting all this together with a little bit of luck should increase one's chance to survive.
Georgia45cal
New member
Very thought provoking thread. Thank you for the time you spent on it.
Focusing too much on the random attack may be a mistake.
Some assailants know their victim and plan an attack on a specific person days or weeks before the crime. Such assailants would be more willing to fight it out seeing how the reward for the crime is perceived to be higher than the random attack. For a random attack, the victim may or may not have anything of value on his or her person, so the assailants aren't as willing to fight it out as the reward for the crime is not guaranteed.
Focusing too much on the random attack may be a mistake.
Some assailants know their victim and plan an attack on a specific person days or weeks before the crime. Such assailants would be more willing to fight it out seeing how the reward for the crime is perceived to be higher than the random attack. For a random attack, the victim may or may not have anything of value on his or her person, so the assailants aren't as willing to fight it out as the reward for the crime is not guaranteed.
Georgia45cal
New member
Perhaps not only do we need high capacity semiautos, but Zombie Max ammo to increase the probability of fending off multiple high-on-bath-salts-I-want-to-eat-your-face assailants.
As Jeff Cooper has said: "Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas" which means Accuracy, Power, and Speed. He came up with this to define the essential elements of combat shooting.
Here we revisit his philosophy coming at it from a different perspective. Cooper stressed in his lectures that you choose the power (his preferred choice was the .45 ACP) then if the situation arises you balance speed and accuracy.
Part of the power calculations must include the cartridge and the number of rounds which you carry.
JohnKSa, thank you for posting your original post. It is food for thought.
Last edited:
I would like to know where you found this nugget of information.
Latest statistics are anywhere from 29% to 49% hit rate depending on which agency is involved. That is not bad considering that that cop is getting shot at, has already been shot, is diving for cover. Two examples of this are an officer with the FT Worth, Texas PD was shot in the pelvis by a 38 wadcutter, he hit his assailant 5 out of 6 shots and the BG's gun with the other shot. An off duty LA cop was ambushed getting out of her POV, shot thru the chest with a 357 magnum, she shot and killed her assailant hitting at least 4 of 5 shot fired. We can cherry pick all day to prove whichever point you want, its a whole new experience when they are shooting at you!Here's some data on civilian shootings. You can decide for yourself whether or not you wish to accept the data as credible--it's provided without any reasonable way to verify it.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8121799&postcount=1
Inside 7 FEET, the hit rate is about 50%.
In the 7 to 15 foot range, it falls to about 30%--similar to what LEOs achieve on average.
Beyond 15 feet the hit rate drops down into the 20%-24% range.
So at very close ranges, this data suggests that you can count on a higher hit rate. Of course there's no free lunch. The bad guy's hit rate will go up at very close range too.
Only about a quarter of the shootings involved a single bad guy. The other 75% involved 2 or more.
Pasted data from linked post is below. I do not know anything about this data or its source other than what is contained in the post. The post is written in the first person, but the "I" in the post is rwilson37643 of THR, not me.
civilian shooting stats
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I acquired some interesting information from a friend who works for a states Attorney General’s office. They have tracked shots fired by CCW holders in the state in self defense, criminal acts, and negligence. Of course this data only includes those incidents reported to police, but it is still very interesting data. In the time this state has been issuing permits in the current manner permit holders have only fired 322 shots. Only 16 of these have been criminal in nature, some of these were in my opinion, negligence, but did result in criminal charges or were acts of suicide. 8 shots have been negligent without criminal charges, most of these occurred on a gun range or in the home. The remaining 296 shots were fired in self defense. The following table shows the range and hit or miss of these 296 shots:
Range # of hits # of Misses Total # of shootings
< 7 FEET 68 (48.9%) 71 (51.1%) 139 (47%) 52 (82.5%)
7 – 15 FEET 31 (32%) 66 (68%) 97 (32.8%) 43 (68.25%)
15 – 30 FEET 9 (24.3%) 28 (75.7%) 37 (12.5%) 12 (19%)
30 – 75 FEET 4 (20%) 16 (80%) 20 (6.76%) 6 (9.5%)
> 75 FEET 1 (33%) 2 (66%) 3 (1%) 1 (1.6%)
TOTAL 113 (38.2%) 183 (61.8%) 296
Some shootings represented in more than 1 range
• Total # of self defense shootings – 63
• Average shots fired by CCW holder – 4.7
• # of shootings with only one bad guy – 16 (25.4%)
• # of shootings with 2 bad guys – 34 (54%)
• # of shootings with 3 bad guys – 12 (19%)
• # of shootings with 4 or more bad guys – 1 (1.6%)
• # in which the bad guy was moving while being shot at – 63 (100%)
• # in which the CCW holder reported at least some movement while firing – 45 (88.9%)
• # of SD shootings occurring at the CCW holders home – 9 (14.3%)
• # of SD shootings occurring at the CCW holders place of employment – 12 (19%)
• # remaining – 42 (66.7%)
• # occurring indoors – 4 (6.4%)
• # occurring outdoors – 59 (93.6%)
• # occurring in full light – 14 (22.2%)
• # occurring in full darkness – 0
• # occurring in dim light – 49 (77.78%)
• Statisticly this states CCW holders have a .017% chance of being involved in a shooting
• # of CCW holders shot, stabbed, or otherwise in need of serious medical attention – 18 (28.5%)
• # of CCW holders killed – 2 (3.17%)
Sorry about the ambiguity and not telling which state. This data has not been made public, and my friend is afraid of repercussions if it is traced back to him. and the table didn't paste so well oops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I acquired some interesting information from a friend who works for a states Attorney General’s office. They have tracked shots fired by CCW holders in the state in self defense, criminal acts, and negligence. Of course this data only includes those incidents reported to police, but it is still very interesting data. In the time this state has been issuing permits in the current manner permit holders have only fired 322 shots. Only 16 of these have been criminal in nature, some of these were in my opinion, negligence, but did result in criminal charges or were acts of suicide. 8 shots have been negligent without criminal charges, most of these occurred on a gun range or in the home. The remaining 296 shots were fired in self defense. The following table shows the range and hit or miss of these 296 shots:
Range # of hits # of Misses Total # of shootings
< 7 FEET 68 (48.9%) 71 (51.1%) 139 (47%) 52 (82.5%)
7 – 15 FEET 31 (32%) 66 (68%) 97 (32.8%) 43 (68.25%)
15 – 30 FEET 9 (24.3%) 28 (75.7%) 37 (12.5%) 12 (19%)
30 – 75 FEET 4 (20%) 16 (80%) 20 (6.76%) 6 (9.5%)
> 75 FEET 1 (33%) 2 (66%) 3 (1%) 1 (1.6%)
TOTAL 113 (38.2%) 183 (61.8%) 296
Some shootings represented in more than 1 range
• Total # of self defense shootings – 63
• Average shots fired by CCW holder – 4.7
• # of shootings with only one bad guy – 16 (25.4%)
• # of shootings with 2 bad guys – 34 (54%)
• # of shootings with 3 bad guys – 12 (19%)
• # of shootings with 4 or more bad guys – 1 (1.6%)
• # in which the bad guy was moving while being shot at – 63 (100%)
• # in which the CCW holder reported at least some movement while firing – 45 (88.9%)
• # of SD shootings occurring at the CCW holders home – 9 (14.3%)
• # of SD shootings occurring at the CCW holders place of employment – 12 (19%)
• # remaining – 42 (66.7%)
• # occurring indoors – 4 (6.4%)
• # occurring outdoors – 59 (93.6%)
• # occurring in full light – 14 (22.2%)
• # occurring in full darkness – 0
• # occurring in dim light – 49 (77.78%)
• Statisticly this states CCW holders have a .017% chance of being involved in a shooting
• # of CCW holders shot, stabbed, or otherwise in need of serious medical attention – 18 (28.5%)
• # of CCW holders killed – 2 (3.17%)
Sorry about the ambiguity and not telling which state. This data has not been made public, and my friend is afraid of repercussions if it is traced back to him. and the table didn't paste so well oops
Last edited:
VegasPlinker
Inactive
i dont know,,
when i was in afganistan there was a big difrence between just shooting at people and shooting at people cause your life was in danger,,
when your life is in danger you almost lose touch with your body its like its on autopilot and just does what it has to to win
so i think i could do better than those numbers show
when i was in afganistan there was a big difrence between just shooting at people and shooting at people cause your life was in danger,,
when your life is in danger you almost lose touch with your body its like its on autopilot and just does what it has to to win
so i think i could do better than those numbers show
To respond to the comment about how poor policemen are supposedly at shooting, perhaps shooting people is not their "core responsibility." Too many seem to think the police are essentially the government's hired guns. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be good shots just the same. Likewise, they spend a lot of time behind the wheel but they don't have to be race car drivers. I see enough of would-be race car drivers on the way to and from work, only it isn't a race; it's more like roller derby.
A lot of theoreticals at play based on a spreadsheet. An interesting spreadsheet though that causes some sobering thought but doesn't necessarily reflect reality.
One thing that jumps out though is capacity matters. I hear a lot of scoffing from people about double stack magazines or why you even need more than six shots. Shooting in the heat of the moment is not the same as shooting at the range. Someone who is a proficient shot at targets may not find they are anywhere near as proficient when adrenaline is pumping and weapons are drawn. Your first shot is probably going to miss unless we're talking point blank. There was a reason I wanted at least 10 rounds in the magazine when I selected a .45
The second thing that occurs to me that capacity or not, your odds of winning a fight against multiple armed opponents are not good. If I was armed with a pocket pistol, my most likely weapon, then we're talking 6 rounds of relatively low caliber. If I'm looking at two or more assailants then my tactic is fire and retreat. I want it to be clear I am not worth the trouble. However, due to the first point I am starting to rethink my opinion that I won't need a second magazine. Reloading is a dodgy prospect but it seems that 6 rounds isn't going to do the job.
As mentioned before, there is also a lag as I am not going to instantly jump into the role of shooter.
You hope that once you pull a gun the bad guys will back down. If it comes to shooting, his buddy or buddies will retreat. Survival looks pretty grim if the second assailant decides to attack.
Maybe off topic, but I think your best weapon is situational awareness. The idea of armed is for a worst case scenario, but you should also do everything you can to avoid a worst case scenario. I'd love to say I'd have my .45 on me at all times, but practicality will overrule that. The Texas summer months are too brutal to always wear clothing that makes concealment of a compact pistol possible. Also, this ain't Hollywood. I don't like my odds if outnumbered.
I do wonder if most people have been like myself and thought mostly about self defense scenarios against a lone attacker. Maybe a better question is how often do violent crimes occur with a single perpetrator versus multiple perpetrators.
One thing that jumps out though is capacity matters. I hear a lot of scoffing from people about double stack magazines or why you even need more than six shots. Shooting in the heat of the moment is not the same as shooting at the range. Someone who is a proficient shot at targets may not find they are anywhere near as proficient when adrenaline is pumping and weapons are drawn. Your first shot is probably going to miss unless we're talking point blank. There was a reason I wanted at least 10 rounds in the magazine when I selected a .45
The second thing that occurs to me that capacity or not, your odds of winning a fight against multiple armed opponents are not good. If I was armed with a pocket pistol, my most likely weapon, then we're talking 6 rounds of relatively low caliber. If I'm looking at two or more assailants then my tactic is fire and retreat. I want it to be clear I am not worth the trouble. However, due to the first point I am starting to rethink my opinion that I won't need a second magazine. Reloading is a dodgy prospect but it seems that 6 rounds isn't going to do the job.
As mentioned before, there is also a lag as I am not going to instantly jump into the role of shooter.
You hope that once you pull a gun the bad guys will back down. If it comes to shooting, his buddy or buddies will retreat. Survival looks pretty grim if the second assailant decides to attack.
Maybe off topic, but I think your best weapon is situational awareness. The idea of armed is for a worst case scenario, but you should also do everything you can to avoid a worst case scenario. I'd love to say I'd have my .45 on me at all times, but practicality will overrule that. The Texas summer months are too brutal to always wear clothing that makes concealment of a compact pistol possible. Also, this ain't Hollywood. I don't like my odds if outnumbered.
I do wonder if most people have been like myself and thought mostly about self defense scenarios against a lone attacker. Maybe a better question is how often do violent crimes occur with a single perpetrator versus multiple perpetrators.
Crow Hunter
New member
To paraphrase something James Yeager told me:
Don't:
go to Stupid Places
with Stupid People
and do Stupid umm... >Stuff<
and you greatly decrease your chances of needing your weapon in the 1st place.
But this data and discussion is prompting me to think again about getting a S&W 642/442 and trying harder to do decent with it so that I will have an easier to carry backup gun.
Yesterday, I used a shot timer to conduct a speed & accuracy test of 4 different Glock pistols: 29SF, 30SF, 27, 26.
* Edit: all of those ^ have a NY trigger (8#)
The 2nd shot times were not all that different, but consistent accuracy was.
I put a 6" circle on a larger target placed 6 yards (18 feet) away.
My goal is to keep all shots on the 6" circle, with the least amount of time from 1st - 2nd shot.
The 29 SF magazines had a Pearce +0 baseplate with room for pinky, the 30 SF had flush fitting magazines; I can't stand the pinky pinch from the 10 rounders.
Both the 26 & 27 had Pearce +0 baseplates with pinky rest.
The extra recoil generated by the 10mm and 40 S&W over 45 and 9mm rounds showed its self in this drill; the 29 and 27 misses were further out of the circle and the overall group measurement including those misses was larger; the 30 and 26 kept any misses very close to the 6" circle.
Basically, I shot the 30 and 26 insignificantly faster, but noticeably more accurate for 8 timed pairs (16 rounds) each.
I'm not quick at anything and I don't use a timer often (disclaimers), that being said, the average shot times (using full power HP ammunition) were .33 sec for the 30 SF (flush fitting magazine) and .25 sec for the 26 (pinky rest).
The main thing I noticed was that the misses with the 30 & 26 only missed that 6" circle by about an inch, would still be a pretty good hit; not so for the other two, they each had a couple of shots land several inches away.
I had been packing the 29 and 27 due to their greater power and I knew I was about as quick with them; but, despite the power advantage and near equal speed, accuracy can't be ignored.
I'm gonna start carrying the 30 and 26.
I'm really not warm & fuzzy about packing a 9mm but it was the fastest & most accurate and took noticeably less effort to keep the front sight on target.
Thanks timer???
* Edit: all of those ^ have a NY trigger (8#)
The 2nd shot times were not all that different, but consistent accuracy was.
I put a 6" circle on a larger target placed 6 yards (18 feet) away.
My goal is to keep all shots on the 6" circle, with the least amount of time from 1st - 2nd shot.
The 29 SF magazines had a Pearce +0 baseplate with room for pinky, the 30 SF had flush fitting magazines; I can't stand the pinky pinch from the 10 rounders.
Both the 26 & 27 had Pearce +0 baseplates with pinky rest.
The extra recoil generated by the 10mm and 40 S&W over 45 and 9mm rounds showed its self in this drill; the 29 and 27 misses were further out of the circle and the overall group measurement including those misses was larger; the 30 and 26 kept any misses very close to the 6" circle.
Basically, I shot the 30 and 26 insignificantly faster, but noticeably more accurate for 8 timed pairs (16 rounds) each.
I'm not quick at anything and I don't use a timer often (disclaimers), that being said, the average shot times (using full power HP ammunition) were .33 sec for the 30 SF (flush fitting magazine) and .25 sec for the 26 (pinky rest).
The main thing I noticed was that the misses with the 30 & 26 only missed that 6" circle by about an inch, would still be a pretty good hit; not so for the other two, they each had a couple of shots land several inches away.
I had been packing the 29 and 27 due to their greater power and I knew I was about as quick with them; but, despite the power advantage and near equal speed, accuracy can't be ignored.
I'm gonna start carrying the 30 and 26.
I'm really not warm & fuzzy about packing a 9mm but it was the fastest & most accurate and took noticeably less effort to keep the front sight on target.
Thanks timer???
Last edited: