Too many factors are left unaccounted for and the nifty little graphs seem to suggest that if you can just send enough lead down range you'll hit the bad guy.
There are many factors left unaccounted for because the graphs are ONLY to tell you what the odds of making a certain number of hits with a certain number of shots given a fixed probability of connecting with each shot.
The graphs do tend to imply that if you can just send enough lead downrange you'll hit the bad guy because that's true (assuming a huge number of rounds available). However, if you read some of my posts you'll see that I make a point of saying that just having more shots won't help you because in the real world, you won't get a chance to stand there shooting at the guy all day and missing until you finally connect--one of the bullets coming back your way will eventually cause you some problems. That and the fact that you don't have unlimited shots.
In reality, there needs to be a balance. Too few shots, and it's very hard to make the hits no matter how well you can shoot. Too poor a hit rate and it's very hard to make the hits even with a high-capacity firearm. You need to find a balance of a good hit rate and enough rounds on tap to get the job done.
Balance.
In short, it is a pointless exercise in mathematical "what-if" that suggests that just sending more lead down-range, ala "spray&pray", is the answer to "the problem" of surviving a gunfight.
You're looking at it from exactly the wrong angle. What it really does is demonstrate how hard it is to get a certain number of hits with realistic hit rate probabilities if you only have a few rounds available to make those hits.
It's not telling you how to succeed, nearly as much as it's showing how HARD it is to succeed if you handicap yourself with too few shots or too low a hit rate probability.
I've made the point repeatedly that there needs to be a balance. If you read the second post I made on this thread, I think you'll find that addresses many of your concerns.
...no valid conclusions can be drawn from such a highly speculative exercise.
Sure they can.
If you assume a given hit rate and a given number of rounds, you can draw a valid conclusion about the probability of making a certain number of hits (4 in the graphs) before running out of ammunition.
The real eye-opener is running the numbers with very high hit-rates and an available round count of only 5 or 6. If the probability of making the required number of hits is low with that round count, even with very high hit rates for each single shot assumed, one can draw the valid conclusion that it's hard to make the required number of hits with an available round count of 5 or 6.
It's a mistake to look at the calculations and assume that they're giving you a realistic calculation of your success rate. They're really sort of a best case scenario in one sense.
There are many issues that might make things turn out much worse than the calculations suggest.
The real story the calculations tell is how hard it is to succeed even with very high hit rates if you don't have sufficient rounds on tap.
, but it is in no way an accurate portrayal of reality and no valid conclusions can be drawn from such a highly speculative exercise.
