I know it's all relative but . . .

It's recited as a Rule of thumb, Rule of 3.. You can see just how much interest I have in the details of it as I can't remember yards or feet.
I always just took the "gist" of it to mean most shootings happen at very close distance.. contact distance you might call it.

But quibble if you want I was just trying to clear up what he was likely talking about.
But I suppose in hindsight I just should have let them answer and clear it up for you.. assuming they post again on this thread.

How far would the attacker move? hard to say im sure everyone reacts to differently to being shot.
I suppose if you shoot them in the face they move about 2 yards.. backwards as they fall, If you measure from the top of their head to the ground and then latterly to where their head comes to a rest, or perhaps no movement at all if measured from their feet.

If they walk thru your bullets like they ain't there I guess I'd say in 3 seconds they'd move 15 yards.. 5 yards x 3 seconds.. 5x3 = 15. ya I think that checks out.

If they run and flee who knows maybe 30 yards?
I hear people are capable of great feats when fearing for their life.

If it's Usain Bolt, According to this story his top speed is 27.8mph
So it's hard to say as it will take him a second to get to top speed..
But Google says that comes out to 13.5 yards per second or 40.77 total yards
http://www.eurosport.com/athletics/...human-ever-100m-record_sto5988142/story.shtml

If it's Stephen Hawking, Well I couldn't find the exact stat on his chairs top speed (believe me I tried) but hoverround says most powered chairs max out around 5mph
A quick stop at google mph - yards/persecond says that's 2.44, so 7.32 yards
https://www.hoveround.com/help/learn-more/power-wheelchairs-101/how-fast-can-a-power-chair-go
Most power wheelchairs average a top speed of approximately 5 mph. However, some power chair models can achieve maximum speeds of 10 mph and more.1
Click to expand...
But then again I gotta think Hawkings chair is probably pretty dope, So he probably has one of the 10mph models hover round talks about.. so double that to 2.88yards per second, 14.64 total yards.

Hope that helps.
 
To answer the OP:
My number one criteria is reliability in choosing a self defense weapon. A very close 2nd is how well do I shoot it. In fact, since I shoot 1911s best, I have put them back on my carry/home defense list despite other weaknesses as a defensive gun (a manual safety, heavy for carry, expensive, low(ish) capacity). So, I'd go with the gun I shoot well no matter how many rounds, and be sure a 2nd gun or reloads were conveniently located.

IIRC it's a FBI statistic that says avg number of shots fired is like 3.
Im sure you heard the rule of 3, 3 shots, 3 seconds 3 feet (or hell is it yards?)
Click to expand...

We've all seen the "Rule of 3" and we've all seen it attributed to the FBI. Unfortunately, has anyone actually seen the study?

I used to quote it myself. I became interested in learning more about the FBI study on which the "rule" was based. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any real details about the study. Sure, you can find forum discussions, blog posts, and gun mag articles where the "rule" is mentioned and that attribute it to the FBI, but any actual info about the study seems non-existent. Even what people "know" about it seems to be based on a lot of poor data and technique.

See just these two examples:
https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/what-do-fbi-statistics-really-say-about-gunfights/
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?6056-FBI-s-quot-Rule-of-3-quot

In that 2nd link, a forum discussion, take a close look at post #3 (Tom Givens is a pretty respected name in the training and gun community).

Bottom line, as best as I can tell, the "Rule of 3's" is just something people started saying and everyone took it as gospel. At best, it is loosely based on misinterpretation of one set of facts (distance where the shot that killed an officer was fired) and people went from there.

Still, since much of the time just showing a gun will end the threat, I'm willing to grant that most of the time having a 5 shot revolver or even a Derringer will be more than enough (heck, most of the time, we'll go through our entire lives and not even need a gun). Thus, most encounters won't take any shots, let alone 2 or 3, and many where you have to shoot may stop at 2 or 3. However, the exceptions are much more numerous than the "then why don't you carry a belt fed machine gun" crowd would have us believe. There are quite a few multiple assailant and multi-shot self defense situations in most decent sized cities in any given year. Heck, I've been the victim of a multi-assailant attack (obviously they didn't kill me, though not for lack of trying and they left me unconscious and bleeding on the sidewalk). It makes sense to be reasonably prepared.
 
@chaim

I guess I need to clear this up.
Listen, I posted that for Oldmarksmen's benefit to explain what "likely" Adambomb was talking about.. In hindsight I should have just waited for adam to come back and clarify his statement him self.

I said I was not sure of source.. I originally heard it from one of the instructors in my CC class many years ago, He did not quote a source, the FBI source (or so I thought) I had remembered (again I could have been wrong and said so) being quoted by other people on the net.
It was a common enough thing that I assumed true and it never really gets questioned in discussion.

So maybe the FBI aren't the source, maybe you're right it started on the net, got repeated enough times, became truth and here we are.
Who knows, Maybe it's just the source that's wrong, maybe it is true.

I can tell you it certainly sounds reasonable to me, for a 1on1 encounter, if a shooting results from a argument that's probably close range, if it's a mugging obviously close range, road rage incident, etc.

I agree with Tom, I think if you'd read the rest of my post you quoted it was pretty obvious I don't use the rule of 3, true or not to be what I strive for in capacity.
I do however still believe the general "idea" that shootings will be close range to be true.. regardless if we ever find a source to backup the distance part of it.

I fully expect if Im ever involved in a shooting I will be shooting with 1 hand, without using sights, probably from the waist, and probably fending off my attacker with my supporting hand.

But I won't know till im in one and like you said most of us never will be.
I did witness a shooting once.. heard not seen.
Guy was breaking into cars, owner came out, caught him, shot him (presumably at close range given his car was maybe 10 feet from his front door.

2 shots was fired, the 2nd one was as the thief ran away (unknown distance)
Thief was armed with only a screw driver (far as I know)
 
I always just took the "gist" of it to mean most shootings happen at very close distance.. contact distance you might call it.
Click to expand...
So, if it were true, what would anyone conclude from that generality?

Police shooting details are analyzed and described in detail. Civilian shooting dara are very scarce. No need.

Police shootings involve traffic stops, and police officers are not expected to disengage immediately after the danger passes, so police shooting data would not be very applicable to the rest of us.

There are some civilian shooting records to be had, mostly from Tennessee.

Sixty-five of Tom Givens' students have been ungloved in shootings. Tom reports that 1.7% of the shootings took place at "contact distance" (six feet or less); 92.1 % occurred between three and seven yards; 5.2% occurred between seven and twenty-five yards.

The "average" number of rounds fired was 3.8, but no one fired 3.8 rounds. The number of shots ranged from one to twelve.

Those stats represent a very small data sample, and it would not be prudent to limit one's magazine capacity on the basis of those numbers.

Shootings involving plain-clothes FBI agents are probably more likely to resemble civilian encounters that those of uniformed officers. Over a five year period, they averaged 3.2 rounds, with distances ranging from six to ten feet.

DEA shootings, also arguably somewhat applicable, averaged 14.6 feet and five rounds in forty four shootings in 2007.

I would never, ever rely upon an average, whether the mean, the mode or the median, in making an important decision of any kind.

The above data are shown in Straight Talk on Self Defense, edited by Massad Ayoob.

In one class I attended, Tom Givens urged, "bring a 'real gun' ". He was pointing out the risks in relying upon a five shot snubby.

JohnKSa posted a pretty good analysis here some time back. After giving it a lot of consideration and after participating in some good defensive pistol training, I concluded that six rounds, which incidentally is lot better than five than one might imagine, would be the bare minimum. Seven are better, and eight, better still. I carry eight, but I know that ten or twelve would be preferable from the standpoint of prudent risk mitigation.
 
OldMarksman said:
So, if it were true, what would anyone conclude from that generality?

Sixty-five of Tom Givens' students have been ungloved in shootings. Tom reports that 1.7% of the shootings took place at "contact distance" (six feet or less); 92.1 % occurred between three and seven yards; 5.2% occurred between seven and twenty-five yards.
Click to expand...
Well I could not remember if the rule of 3 was yards or feet, so let's go with yards, that's 9 feet, I'd still call that contact range.
I just measured my arm span and it was roughly 29 inch from middle finger tip to arm pit (I say roughly cause It was harder then you think to measure your self)
So my reach is nearly 2 1/2 feet
You seem to be interested in earlier in yards per second so If im traveling at 5 yards per second and I have a 2 1/2 feet reach how long will it take me to put hands on you at 3 yards? how about 5 yards? 7 yards even? come on we've all heard the knife vs gun draw at 7 yards right? Well maybe that one's not true either.

What would I conclude? simple, just as I said before I imagine if im involved in a shooting the probability is Im going to have to deal with the attacker hands on with my supporting hand, I honestly doubt I have room or time to sight the gun.

Who knows I might not even have time to draw immediately even with 1 hand.. I might have to deflect the attacker and take a few steps back before drawing.. I'd rather have a good 5-10 yards distance AFTER I've cleared the holster.. but I doubt I'll have the luxury.

OldMarksman said:
The "average" number of rounds fired was 3.8, but no one fired 3.8 rounds. The number of shots ranged from one to twelve.
Click to expand...
Rule of 3 is a rule of thumb, Obviously if the avg is 3.8 then the scale was heavily weight towards fewer not more shots fired, none the less I've always argued for more capacity not less.
at any rate when someone finds fault with carrying anything larger then a 5 or 6 shot revolver cause it's not needed, I just think to my self.. great! I won't need to reload for 3 or 4 shootings then.
Click to expand...

OldMarksman said:
Those stats represent a very small data sample, and it would not be prudent to limit one's magazine capacity on the basis of those numbers.
Click to expand...
Agreed, never suggested otherwise.

Shootings involving plain-clothes FBI agents are probably more likely to resemble civilian encounters that those of uniformed officers. Over a five year period, they averaged 3.2 rounds, with distances ranging from six to ten feet.
Click to expand...
Sounds pretty close to the rule of 3.

OldMarksman said:
I would never, ever rely upon an average, whether the mean, the mode or the median, in making an important decision of any kind.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, If we went on avg the avg person never is involved in a SD shooting in their life time.. we'd carry no gun at all.

OldMarksman said:
The above data are shown in Straight Talk on Self Defense, edited by Massad Ayoob.

In one class I attended, Tom Givens urged, "bring a 'real gun' ". He was pointing out the risks in relying upon a five shot snubby.

JohnKSa posted a pretty good analysis here some time back. After giving it a lot of consideration and after participating in some good defensive pistol training, I concluded that six rounds, which incidentally is lot better than five than one might imagine, would be the bare minimum. Seven are better, and eight, better still. I carry eight, but I know that ten or twelve would be preferable from the standpoint of prudent risk mitigation.
Click to expand...
Is the book anything like John Lott's, more guns less crime?
It was full of information but as dry as toast.. made a great sleep aid.

I don't disagree about 5 shot revolvers, I know a few instructors that actually carry them and no reload.. I won't tell anyone not to carry one.. carry what ever you want, It's not for me though.

I carry a fullsize 9mm 18+1, but most people won't carry that either cause it's either too heavy or too big. :rolleyes:
 
...come on we've all heard the knife vs gun draw at 7 yards right? Well maybe that one's not true either.
Click to expand...
How can it not be true? It simply states that, given a 1.5 second draw time, a person can move 21 feet.

By the way, that's at a speed of five yards per second, which the Teeller demonstrations verify as being pretty much par for the course..

Simple math.

Of course, dreaming, fifing and hitting will be most unlikely to effect an immediate stop,

What would I conclude? simple, just as I said before I imagine if im involved in a shooting the probability is Im going to have to deal with the attacker hands on with my supporting hand, I honestly doubt I have room or time to sight the gun.
Click to expand...
That might be a very good assessment, but one could not conclude that simply from an average.

Rule of 3 is a rule of thumb, Obviously if the avg is 3.8 then the scale was heavily weight towards fewer not more shots fired....
Click to expand...
Eh?

One thing to keep in mind is that, what the aggressor is moving rapidly from a short distance, a trained defender, aware that "one shot stops" are extremely unlikely, is apt to shoot several shots very rapidly--probably two or three, or maybe four--before having any idea about whether he or she has been successful.

And that may be just for starters.
 
OldMarksman said:
How can it not be true? It simply states that, given a 1.5 second draw time, a person can move 21 feet.

By the way, that's at a speed of five yards per second, which the Teeller demonstrations verify as being pretty much par for the course..
Click to expand...
LOL I guess I should put /sarcasm tags on things.
Although I've seen it go both ways on youtube using sharpies.

If it wasn't apparent I agree.. that's why I say 3-5-7 yards? does it matter? barely. This is why I expect in a shooting I'll probably have to go hands on with the BG at least to some degree.

OldMarksman said:
That might be a very good assessment, but one could not conclude that simply from an average.
Click to expand...
Seems we can't conclude anything from anything.

OldMarksman said:
Eh?

One thing to keep in mind is that, what the aggressor is moving rapidly from a short distance, a trained defender, aware that "one shot stops" are extremely unlikely, is apt to shoot several shots very rapidly--probably two or three, or maybe four--before having any idea about whether he or she has been successful.

And that may be just for starters.
Click to expand...
I thought we was trying to squash the rule of 3.. I was just pointing out 3.8 is not that far from 3.. and obviously if the shots was up to 12 it must have been heavily weighted toward just a few shots to bring the avg down.. if it was evenly distributed shots would avg 6 on a scale 1-12

Personally Im not stopping till I hear air whistling or see daylight.
BTW that's /Sarcasm :p

Im not one of those people who expect a one stop shot.. unless maybe to the face but even that's not 100%
 
...I expect in a shooting I'll probably have to go hands on with the BG at least to some degree.
Click to expand...
Not a bad idea to consider the possibility and train for it, but if the perp has an edged weapon, that could have a very bad outcome.

I would really, really want to avoid that.

I would try to do so by recognizing the need to react as quickly as possible, and by doing so; by moving off line while drawing; by drawing and getting shots on target with combat accuracy as effectively and as rapidly as possible; and if the situation allowed for it, by using a car door or shopping cart to slow the advance of the assailant.

I do not think that running backwards would a wise reaction.

I have seen training videos in which the defender drops to the ground, but that would be a last resort.
 
An armed bad guy(s) in my house is a life or death situation for me and my family. This is serious stuff, and the last thing I need is to run out of bullets.

Shooting well (accurately) at a range while sighting a stationary target in good lighting is entirely different than a home defense shooting in the dark against a moving target while scared for your life. You are bound to have a lot of misses. And if the intruder(s) is pumped up on drugs, alcohol, or adrenaline, you may need a lot of hits to stop them. Throw in multiple bad guys and you'll be thankful for capacity.

I keep a CZ 75BD strapped to my bed post with 16+1 rounds and a spare magazine nearby. Fortunately this gun has a high capacity AND I shoot it well. I can see why an AR-15 type rifle with a 30 round magazine is becoming more popular for home defense, although in many states the politicians don't want us to have that much protection since one in a million people may misuse it.

TomNJVA
 
An armed bad guy(s) in my house is a life or death situation for me and my family. This is serious stuff, and the last thing I need is to run out of bullets.

Shooting well (accurately) at a range while sighting a stationary target in good lighting is entirely different than a home defense shooting in the dark against a moving target while scared for your life. You are bound to have a lot of misses. And if the intruder(s) is pumped up on drugs, alcohol, or adrenaline, you may need a lot of hits to stop them. Throw in multiple bad guys and you'll be thankful for capacity.
Click to expand...
All true, and it is equally true at the ATM.

An alcohol or drugs would not be required to make multiple hits necessary.
 
Most shootings doesn't mean it will be your shooting. Again, I say - take a statistics class and learn what distributions and risk cut-offs are all about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top