Is a single stack enough?
- Thread starter Jacket67
- Start date
Here's a link to a thread with the plots showing the probability of success run for a range of assumptions.
Hits required range from 1 to 6.
Capacity goes from 4 to 15 shots.
Hit rate probability runs from 10% to 90%.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=589332
Hits required range from 1 to 6.
Capacity goes from 4 to 15 shots.
Hit rate probability runs from 10% to 90%.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=589332
Triggernosis
New member
Dang, that Ruger American is a full house of ammo!
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
This is for the the 'if you can't do it one shot' baloney.
https://activeselfprotection.com/re...ing_wp_cron=1504287757.9552950859069824218750
Now, you might say that you aren't a police officer, etc. The point is that 3 shots of a 40 SW didn't do it. Now if there were two of these types attacking you - you just announce that you aren't skilled?
Thanks to John for the great plots!!
https://activeselfprotection.com/re...ing_wp_cron=1504287757.9552950859069824218750
Now, you might say that you aren't a police officer, etc. The point is that 3 shots of a 40 SW didn't do it. Now if there were two of these types attacking you - you just announce that you aren't skilled?
Thanks to John for the great plots!!
JoeSixpack
New member
WOW, real life zombie is right, The guy did not even acknowledge he had been shot 3 times.. Looks like he had to move in to land a head shot to have any effect.
Never seen anything like it.
Never seen anything like it.
I think you will find records of individuals who have absorbed 10+ rounds of 9MM and .40 out there and continued to fight. To me preparing for a multitude of those individuals is like preparing for a multitude of individuals with body armor... there are things you cannot do with a concealed pistol
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Like I said, you decide what you can't do. Others will see the world differently.
Rationalizations to carry "less" than they could create a view something like this.
Pond James Pond
New member
Here's a question for the stats boffins:
Well, this has been an interesting read. I think I would be in the school of thought that feels that, given the likelihood of needing a gun is low, already carrying a gun mitigates a lot of what comes after that.
However, my choice of carry is heavily influenced by the law.
Here you can carry concealed. However, you cannot carry a gun with a round in the chamber. In other words it's condition 3 only.
The exception to that is revolvers. They can be carried fully loaded. But of course that pretty much means either 5-6rds or 8-10 of a small caliber (.22 etc).
So that question:
It was interesting and somewhat sobering to read the linked posts by JohnSKa about the statistics of successful hits. Basically, if it is only one assailant, the odds are more or less in my favour but if I were faced by two determined assailants, my 6-shot Astra would afford me 7.1% chance of not having to resort to hand to hand.
As explained I based my choice of weapon on the fact that it is the only type that I can legally carry read to fire.
But what do the statistics suggest is the better option? Is there a statistical analysis that could compare how not having to chamber a round mitigates the lower capacity of a snub revolver?
If only 6 shots gives me 7.1% of successfully neutralising a 2-attacker threat, how would a 16rd capacity improve things for me if we accept that the first round had to be chambered first?
A highly specific question selfishly relevant only to me, but I'd be very interested to know.
Well, this has been an interesting read. I think I would be in the school of thought that feels that, given the likelihood of needing a gun is low, already carrying a gun mitigates a lot of what comes after that.
However, my choice of carry is heavily influenced by the law.
Here you can carry concealed. However, you cannot carry a gun with a round in the chamber. In other words it's condition 3 only.
The exception to that is revolvers. They can be carried fully loaded. But of course that pretty much means either 5-6rds or 8-10 of a small caliber (.22 etc).
So that question:
It was interesting and somewhat sobering to read the linked posts by JohnSKa about the statistics of successful hits. Basically, if it is only one assailant, the odds are more or less in my favour but if I were faced by two determined assailants, my 6-shot Astra would afford me 7.1% chance of not having to resort to hand to hand.
As explained I based my choice of weapon on the fact that it is the only type that I can legally carry read to fire.
But what do the statistics suggest is the better option? Is there a statistical analysis that could compare how not having to chamber a round mitigates the lower capacity of a snub revolver?
If only 6 shots gives me 7.1% of successfully neutralising a 2-attacker threat, how would a 16rd capacity improve things for me if we accept that the first round had to be chambered first?
A highly specific question selfishly relevant only to me, but I'd be very interested to know.
Triggernosis
New member
James Pond, would a 7-shot S&W model 686-Plus be an option for you?
Pond James Pond
New member
In principle, it would certainly be an improvement as would the TRR-8 but the reality is that this would be harder to carry concealed due to the size and, more importantly, I have never found a shop in this country that sells new S&W. I've seen a few J-frames on sale in the second hand adds, but never a new one.
The only new revolvers they sell are Taurus and Ruger (and even the Ruger stockist stopped selling them).
Revolvers, ironically, are not that popular here.... most prefer semis. Perhaps they just ignore the law and carry loaded or think they'd have the time to chamber.
So, in a word, no, the 686+ wouldn't be an option...
I would doubt it but think about it this way...chance of needing a gun very low, chance of having to fire if you need a gun is very low. If you are attacked and in a struggle not having a round in the chamber could be a good thing if the attacker grabs the gun (so could a manual safety), then again that time chambering could cost your life. There is no right answer. I think the main idea in this thread is that you can never go wrong by having too many rounds but you can go wrong by having too little. Chambering vs not chambering is a whole other discussion that just leads into scenarios...and thats the problem with what you are asking - we don't know and can only say what is right for one specific scenario and that might not work for another.
OldMarksman
Staff
I cannot imagine carrying a defensive semiautomatic pistol without having chambered a round in advance.
Pond James Pond
New member
So, then, if you lived here you'd have made the same choice as me: revolver...
stephen426
New member
Glenn,
Regarding the video, the officer did what he needed to do, which is failure to stop drill. One head shot dropped the bad guy like a sack of bricks. While head shots are obviously harder to make, they are much more effective at stopping threats. We actually practice this when we do our tactical shoots. We also practice reloading and engaging multiple targets.
While you may actually convince some people to carry a larger capacity gun or carry additional reloads, Most will probably continue to carry what the are able to practically carry. Better the gun on your hip than the one you left at home when trouble strikes.
One other thing to think about... If you take your statistics and add the poisson variable for the probability of ever actually needing to use your gun, then factor in the probability of getting attacked by more than one person, then the stats don't look so scary at all.
Regarding the video, the officer did what he needed to do, which is failure to stop drill. One head shot dropped the bad guy like a sack of bricks. While head shots are obviously harder to make, they are much more effective at stopping threats. We actually practice this when we do our tactical shoots. We also practice reloading and engaging multiple targets.
While you may actually convince some people to carry a larger capacity gun or carry additional reloads, Most will probably continue to carry what the are able to practically carry. Better the gun on your hip than the one you left at home when trouble strikes.
One other thing to think about... If you take your statistics and add the poisson variable for the probability of ever actually needing to use your gun, then factor in the probability of getting attacked by more than one person, then the stats don't look so scary at all.
Triggernosis
New member
^^^ Good choice, sir!
Lohman with all due respect that is a classic straw man argument. The discussion is about how many rounds gives a reasonable chance of stopping an attack based on hit rate and number of hits required per attacker. Any honest analysis will quickly show that stopping even one committed attacker will likely take several rounds. Add a second or third assailant and the numbers quickly go up. Our ability to survive the attack is dependent on many factors other than rounds available, but an empty gun has little value in a gun fight.
Understanding that we can't properly prepare for attackers who absorb countless handgun rounds or hordes of armor clad terrorists doesn't mean we should cynically conclude that we are at the mercy of those with no regard for anything other than their own desires. We study and train to be prepared to defend ourselves. We each have to decide how much is enough. The information being discussed here is useful in making those decisions. There is value in that.
Isn't the percentage of "one-shot stops" for a 9MM above 80%? http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm While I respect the argument that a determined attacker can absorb more and the above likely represents mostly psychological stops rather than physiological I'm not certain where the idea we should prepare for attackers who need 2-3 shots to stops and not ones that need 10+ is coming from. This is one of my concerns with the articulated argument. Why 2-3? Why not 10+?
On the one side it's being noted that accepting my limitations is being defeatist. To some degree are we not all though in preparing for the attackers who take 2-3 hits rather than those (on both sides) involved in the Miami shoot-out?
If I argue I can readily, and with some assurance, defeat 2-3 competent and determined attackers I would either be overestimating my own abilities or underestimating the competence of the attackers. Assume competence as equal to mine and they start with great advantages: both numbers and the ability to initiate the confrontation. That is not to doubt others may possess that ability... I don't. Will I simply give up after I run out of ammo? Nope.
On the one side it's being noted that accepting my limitations is being defeatist. To some degree are we not all though in preparing for the attackers who take 2-3 hits rather than those (on both sides) involved in the Miami shoot-out?
If I argue I can readily, and with some assurance, defeat 2-3 competent and determined attackers I would either be overestimating my own abilities or underestimating the competence of the attackers. Assume competence as equal to mine and they start with great advantages: both numbers and the ability to initiate the confrontation. That is not to doubt others may possess that ability... I don't. Will I simply give up after I run out of ammo? Nope.
Last edited:
Depending on the hit rate. Improving the hit rate (skill level) will improve the chances of making the required number of hits.
But yes, if the requirement is to make X hits and you have X+1 rounds available to do it, it's a very difficult task. Of course, even if you do have to go hand to hand, you likely scored at least one or two hits before running dry and that means your hand to hand odds are much improved over what they would have been against two uninjured attackers.
Also, it's important to understand that there is more than one way to look at the data. One could interpret the data as a useful way to settle on a capacity for their carry gun. Or, one could interpret the data as a useful way to gain a realistic perspective on what kind of capability they will have with a given capacity/hit rate/number of required hits.
If you're stuck with 5 rounds, at least you now understand that shooting it out with 2 determined attackers does not give you a good chance of success. So maybe your strategy should be to use the time it takes you to expend your 5 rounds (hopefully neutralizing at least one of the attackers) doing something else that will increase your chances of survival after the gun runs dry. Maybe moving toward your vehicle. Maybe putting some kind of obstacle between you and your attackers.
My biggest takeway from the numbers was that I shouldn't take it as a given that the problem would be solved by the time the gun was empty. Which means that shooting back shouldn't be my only strategy--I need to also be trying to do something else at the same time that will leave me in a better position for survival after I run dry than just standing there with an empty gun in my hand.
I think you will find records of individuals who stand 8 feet tall. And records of people who weigh over 1000lbs. There are records of people who can lift small cars or even get shot in the stomach with a cannon ball and survive.
Of course, just pointing out that humanity encompasses a broad range of characteristics is meaningless unless there's some reason that it has relevance to the topic at hand. Do you have some evidence to suggest that it's reasonable to expect that a determined attacker will require 10+ rounds to neutralize? Because while I know that there are some extremely tall individuals in the human race, I also know that it's not reasonable for me to be surprised every time I run across someone who's merely average in height nor is it reasonable for me to open the door every time the doorbell rings with my eyes pointing 2 feet upwards in case the person on my doorstep is 8 feet tall.
And yes, there are certainly things you just can't do with a pistol. There are things you just can't do with pocketknife as well, but I don't plan to stop carrying mine because I can't chop down trees with it, nor would it be reasonable for me to try to talk a person out of sharpening his pocket knife because he still won't be able to kill a moose with a sharp pocket knife.
It's even higher than that if you also include all the attackers who "stopped" without even being shot at all. One very commonly quoted study indicates that 9 out of 10 successful defensive gun uses are resolved without the attacker being shot. If you want to prepare for that all it takes is a starter pistol.
So you think that 2-3 is too high based on stopping percentages but that it still makes sense to throw out 10+ for consideration? Well, then, if you think that 10+ is a reasonable number of hits per determined attacker required for success, then you can use that as a starting assumption and prepare based on that assumption.
Study the graphs for awhile and you will be able to see what happens to the lines as the number of shots required for success goes up. You should be able to get a very good feel for what the odds will be even without the exact numbers.
"To some degree", no doubt. "To some degree" is a very handy rhetorical tool because it doesn't have to include the concept of reasonable. "To a ridiculous degree" is definitely encompassed by the statement "To some degree" as is "To an infinitesimal degree". Now, if you had said, "To a reasonable degree..." then your statement would have been obviously false. Trying to choose a carry gun that will prepare you for the type of law enforcement shootout that happens only once in many decades is not reasonable at all. I like the concept of reasonable. It makes things much easier.
If you want to prepare for 10+ or for the Miami shootout then go for it--you have only yourself to convince and most people find that a very easy task. Convincing other people it's reasonable will take a good deal more work and you haven't even begun to tread that path yet.
You have asked a variety of questions throughout the thread. Asking questions is a good start but to get past the starting line takes more than just questions. I put together the spreadsheet because I had questions. If I had just kept asking questions and had never tried to answer them, never done anything constructive about my curiosity, I would still be exactly where I started--no progress would have been made at all.
What's the next step? It is trying to answer the questions you have--instead of just trying to come up with more and more questions. Do some research on the topic and come back with a number or range of numbers that you believe is reasonable AND with convincing evidence/a convincing argument to support that belief.
Another option would be to just reject all the assumptions made here--you sound like you're close to that already. In that case it would probably make more sense to start another thread with the assumptions you feel are reasonable and see where it goes rather than trying to participate in a discussion where there's no common ground to begin with--no shared starting assumptions to build on.
I should point out that this thread has at least put in my mind that a third magazine may be advisable. I've not ignored the discussion on quantity of rounds entirely.
I still think the attacker who stops when a defender brings out a gun is most common. The attacker who stops after being hit once is next and the attacker who absorbs more than a couple rounds and continues is an extreme oddity. Facing two or three of these attackers is, IMO, an extremely unlikely situation.
This is an interesting discussion and it's an honest question I do return to when asking why prepare with the concept each attacker will take 2-3 rounds to neutralize. It's not really a worst case scenario nor does it seem a most likely scenario.
What is the "worst" case scenario I prepare for. My movement drills feature two and sometimes three targets. Two shots center of mass, called target, another shot center of mass as needed and then a reload. Admittedly I do not practice head shots as body armor is beyond my worst case scenario. I guess my hope withbthree attackers is that on flees when the shooting starts, one stops after being hit, and one is not so competent that my defenses are overcome that quickly but there is a lot of hoping going on there. A competent attacker, with a single target, should be able to score hits in the process even as I move and frankly I am not certain how to overcome this "reality". Really I hope for incompetent and undetermined attackers
I still think the attacker who stops when a defender brings out a gun is most common. The attacker who stops after being hit once is next and the attacker who absorbs more than a couple rounds and continues is an extreme oddity. Facing two or three of these attackers is, IMO, an extremely unlikely situation.
This is an interesting discussion and it's an honest question I do return to when asking why prepare with the concept each attacker will take 2-3 rounds to neutralize. It's not really a worst case scenario nor does it seem a most likely scenario.
What is the "worst" case scenario I prepare for. My movement drills feature two and sometimes three targets. Two shots center of mass, called target, another shot center of mass as needed and then a reload. Admittedly I do not practice head shots as body armor is beyond my worst case scenario. I guess my hope withbthree attackers is that on flees when the shooting starts, one stops after being hit, and one is not so competent that my defenses are overcome that quickly but there is a lot of hoping going on there. A competent attacker, with a single target, should be able to score hits in the process even as I move and frankly I am not certain how to overcome this "reality". Really I hope for incompetent and undetermined attackers