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

I had the exact same realization several years ago.

I switched from G23 & G27 to G19 & G26.

I felt I would be more "effective" with the 9mm even though the .40 and .45 had more "power".
 
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.
Click to expand...

That is what happens to a lot of people they train for what is referred to as "my gunfight". It is good that you are questioning that thought process.

Basically, I shot the 30 and 26 insignificantly faster, but noticeably more accurate for 8 timed pairs (16 rounds) each.
Click to expand...

That is very important! You can make good hits faster with those guns. That would be my recommendation to carry. I have a Glock 27 that is now my most carried gun, but I use a 13 shot mag with the extension for a full hand grip.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=202511

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=203152

Some good info on studies done for the Justice department. This is why "proper" training is important.
 
The Texas summer months are too brutal to always wear clothing that makes concealment of a compact pistol possible
Click to expand...

Even in the hottest, if I feel like it - I can conceal a G26. Cargo shorts, t-shirt and very light floppy shirt works. Magellean or Columbia make such items.

Thus, the G26 (extension plate) and an extra mag isn't that much of a hassle.
 
Going on a bike run to the eastern part of the state (Hot) and have decided to carry my Kahr P9, 8 + 1 rounds 9mmHSC and three backup mags, two in the concealed carry vest and one on the belt. I considered the G27 but its just to much, albeit not by much for biking in this weather....in twenty years of such trips never needed a gun, most of the time just extra weight that turned out to be not needed....Still I take it along....;)
 
I can conceal the glock 26/27 with minimal clothing.
Two options:
-untucked loose fitting t-shirt and shorts using a Fist kydex clip-on holster appendix IWB
-untucked loose fitting t-shirt and gym / sweat shorts using a Smartcarry

Unless you are going around shirtless, that ^ is a minimum of clothing.

Tucked-in shirts are a major hindrance to my CC and I ONLY reluctantly tuck in my shirt at work, where I can't carry anyway.
 
I've assumed a hit rate probability of 30% for the listings below since that is an often quoted figure for the hit rate probability of law enforcement officers involved in gunfights.
Click to expand...

The number I heard was just over 15% for police. Right at 15% for civilians and slightly less for criminals. This was from a police officer in charge of training for a large department citing OPOTA numbers. This data was for presented as actual shooting against people, not against cars, dogs, etc. From the videos and accounts I have seen the numbers seem much closer to this 'around 15%' number.

it's not terribly likely that you'll be able to take advantage of a huge round count in the few seconds a gunfight typically lasts.
Click to expand...
How long does it take you to empty your gun? I think I will likely empty my gun before I can confirm the first shot hit. If I get hit that might change things though. Many of the surveillance videos show guns being emptied or 8+ shots being fired within seconds.

we need to assess likely hit percentages from realistic training with a lot of rounds fired.
Click to expand...
I disagree totally. Training comes nowhere close to actual situations. Even military training with the fake propane guns and tracers over head has been shown to have limited success.

I think comparing old police statistics to new ones and contributing the difference to gun changes is extremely flawed. Being a police officer used to be, say a lifestyle. The percentage of officers who were shooters was much higher. As pay and benefits have increased dramatically the last few decades police forces are much more diverse. My local PD has a CPA on it now. Maybe this is just a local trend or a misconception, but I know some of the older/retired officers locally agree.

Agree with CDW4me and suggest anyone carrying a higher powered round than 9mm run a similar drill with a convertible gun. I would say that without a doubt the drill has enough value to me that buying a barrel for a friends convertible gun to run the drill then giving it to them would have been worth the experience(I had a Glock 27 myself). I don't own a 45, although I have fired one a few times here and there. Although the recoil is more mathematically it seems much more manageable than 40SW.

Some years ago I was taking some martial arts training with a little with edged weapons thrown in. My foreign instructor made a point of making sure that we didn't limit ourselves to the weapon. Make that big slow swing of the sword at someones head and when they lift their arms up to block it put your foot in their rib or such. In the US it seems most have a more one dimensional training such as is found in fencing or boxing. The point here being, maybe you only get the on hit in a non-vital area. Your opponent is weakened and has a very vulnerable wound. Maybe they are crawling away, or maybe they are hit in the leg and you can make a hasty retreat. If not then your 5 shot revolver with a 3% chance of getting 2 hits on both opponents may have at least dropped it from two opponents to one that is injured.

The lesson I learned from Lance Thomas is that as often as not, winning is just losing less.
 
Last edited:
The number I heard was just over 15% for police. Right at 15% for civilians and slightly less for criminals. This was from a police officer in charge of training for a large department citing OPOTA numbers.
Click to expand...

You have to be careful where you get your numbers. That number is close to correct for multiple officer shootings such as Diallo in NYC. For one on one shootings it is closer to 50% hits.

Since you have advanced martial arts training and practice whom would you consider to have the advantage in a fight with someone who has taken basic self defense training?

What does this mean to you and me? With proper training and a proper mindset you are preparing yourself to win.
 
How long does it take you to empty your gun?
Click to expand...
It depends on the gun and its capacity. I can empty my 7 shot PPK very rapidly. My 20round PX4 takes considerably longer. :D

The point was that taking capacity to an extreme ("huge round count") isn't a solution all by itself. It takes a balance of capacity and skill.
The number I heard was just over 15% for police.
Click to expand...
I ran the first two tables using 30%, the graphs allow one to run the numbers for any hit rate between 10% and 90% although running hit rates that aren't even multiples of 10% will require some "eyeballing" to get an answer.
 
Posted by Botswana: You hope that once you pull a gun the bad guys will back down.
Click to expand...
Of course.

If it comes to shooting, his buddy or buddies will retreat.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty definite statement. I wouldn't count on it.

His buddy may retreat. He probably will, if he sees that as his best chance of escape and survival.

But if he needs your car to get away, he may not.

If he is already within closing distance with a blade, he may decide that neutralizing you would give him a better chance than running and giving you a chance to shoot him.
 
I wish that this tread would become a "Sticky".

It could be used as reference for those who are considering what rounds count their handgun should have. Also, it could be referred to for those considering carrying extra mags or speed loaders.
 
I think a hit rate for the police of 30% is quite good. If you think about it, their context and rules of engagement are quite different than the average CCW holder. It's the job of the police to chase down and apprehend bad guys. Bad guy's will run, shoot, do anything to avoid getting caught. However, once a bad guy runs from a CCW holder, the CCW needs to quit shooting -- the threat is over. The CCW holder will not be following the bad guy with a mission of getting them off the street.

The police face a much harder task than the average CCW holder. The average CCW holder might pull his weapon and catch an aggressor unaware, and a bad guy will never be an easier target than they are at that moment. An aggressor with any brains is going to get the heck out of their and move on to easier pickings. The CCW holders job is done at that point, but that is where the job of law enforcement is just beginning. It is much harder to track down a bad guy and apprehend him than it is to defend one's self against an assailant looking for easy pickings.

Of course I have no data or experience to back my view. it's just a slightly different perspective on the original analysis. Thanks to the original poster for giving us all a lot to think about.
 
No shortage of experts here...

The police can not use deadly force to apprehend.

Ther greatest majority of police involved shootings are self defense shootings, as are CCW carriers. There's not great difference in police and civilian shootings other than a police officer is more likely to have one.
 
The police can not use deadly force to apprehend.
Click to expand...
They certainly can in some areas. TX is one of them.

If a TX LEO is:

  • engaged in the lawful pursuit of his duties
-AND-
  • identifies himself to the suspect (or is clearly identifiable)
-AND-
  • reasonably believes that force is immediately necessary to carry out the action in question
-AND-
  • reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest or prevent an arrestee from escaping
-AND-
  • reasonably believes that the offense for which the person is being arrested involved the use or attempted use of deadly force
-OR-
  • reasonably believes that the failure to arrest the person or prevent the escape will expose himself or another to a substantial risk of death or bodily injury
-THEN-

The LEO can lawfully use deadly force to make the arrest or to prevent an arrestee from escaping.

In the simplest terms, if the person in question committed a crime involving deadly force then a TX LEO can use deadly force to apprehend that person if he reasonably believes that there's no other way to make the arrest.

SUBCHAPTER E. LAW ENFORCEMENT Sec. 9.51.
ARREST AND SEARCH.
(a) A peace officer, or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after arrest, if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he reasonably believes the warrant is valid; and
(2) before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace officer or as one acting at a peace officer's direction, unless he reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.​

...

(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is delayed.​
 
Ya know what John?... Your absoloutly correct. When the perpetrator pose a life threat to an individual, 0r the public at large a Police Officer may use deadly physical force to apprehend him/her. Like a person carrying a bomb, or one who is on a rampage employing deadly force.

Or a corrections officer or parole officer preventing an escape.

So it in the state I hail from...

Though I have never seen it used except for a state corrections officer.
 
When the perpetrator pose a life threat to an individual, 0r the public at large a Police Officer may use deadly physical force to apprehend him/her.
Click to expand...
It's actually a little less restrictive than that. Even if the officer doesn't believe that the offender is still a danger to the public, per the letter of the law, the officer may still use deadly force to apprehend the person if the officer reasonably believes there is no other way to effect the apprehension and the crime for which the offender is being apprehended involved the use or attempted use of deadly force.

Frankly, I think from a practical perspective, an officer who shot a criminal fleeing would be in hot water and a civil case would certainly ensue, but as long as the circumstances fit the letter of the law, a criminal conviction would be difficult to obtain.
 
The problem with statements like this about when a person, even including a law officer, is allowed to use deadly force, is that typically he probably has seconds to make a decision. They will then be judged by people who weren't there and who have all the time they want to decide whether or not his split-second decision was the right one. This isn't so much a case of what the rules are or whether they are good or not but rather a case of life won't always be fair.
 
Don't forget that the hit rate for LEO shootings also includes officers who may have been shot and are returning fire after being hit, with the resulting reduction in accuracy.

But that is something that people need to take into account. By definition, a CCW carrier is probably going to be a reactive shooter even more so than a LEO. He/she may have already been shot or under fire by the time they draw their weapon.

Situations where CCW holder have their weapons drawn and trained on a target before the "action" starts are going to be few and far between other than home defense.

This is another reason that your training regimen should also include firing one handed, weak handed and from the ground if at all possible. This means you need to have a weapon that you can control and that will function for you in these types of situations as well.

Two handed Iso/Weaver stances squared up to a stationary single target are not going to be the norm.
 
Great thread. I'll cast my vote for it being made into a sticky or linked somewhere for future access. Not only does it give a good rational basis for assessing needs for future CHL holders, it also prevents some good rational reasons why magazine capacity bans could end up killing a lot more people than they save.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top