Is a single stack enough?

[OldMarksman]

Perhaps more time should be spent on situational awareness and trying avoid having to pull your pistol in the first place rather than imagining scenarios where you will play OK Corral and need 39 rounds to win.

Obviously, avoidance is the first priority.

Failing that, one resorts to tactics, and to effectiveness in shooing--a balance of speed and precision,

But this thread is about the prudence of choosing a five or six shot capacity or eight or twelve or maybe more.

Different subject.

Imagining scenarios? Well, a little training should help one prepare for whatever is likely occur in the gravest extreme.

OK Corral? No. The unexpected violent attack, most likely at close range, offered without warning. Real life.

 

[SocialAnarchist]

None of us care at all.

The purpose of the discussion is to learn and to teach.

Seriously? Nit picking everyone's choice that is different than yours is not learning or teaching. If I say I am comfortable and feel adequately protected with my XDs .45 and 2 magazines why try to convince me I am not? Or the guy with the 5 round revolver, or any choice different than yours? Carry what you want, in the caliber you want, with as many rounds as you want. I don't care what your choice is.

But I will say this, spraying 30 plus rounds at a bad guy in the hopes of hitting him 9 times (30% that someone quoted) seems like a good way to hit and potentially kill innocent by standers.

OK Corral? No. The unexpected violent attack, most likely at close range, offered without warning. Real life.

Exactly how many times have you faced this in real life?

 

[OldMarksman]

If I say I am comfortable and feel adequately protected with my XDs .45 and 2 magazines why try to convince me I am not?

Who would try?

By the way, how would you intend to make those two magazines useful for self defense?

Or the guy with the 5 round revolver, or a...

I carried a five round revolver for a time. Discussions such as these made me the think very differently, some time ago. The links in Post #122 were very helpful then.

Carry what you want, in the caliber you want, with as many rounds as you want.

Alrighty. But might it not be useful to provide some useful information to help people with the choice?

I don't care what your choice is.

Nor so I.

But I will say this, spraying 30 plus rounds at a bad guy in the hopes of hitting him 9 times (30% that someone quoted) seems like a good way to hit and potentially kill innocent by standers.

Off topic.

Exactly how many times have you faced this [the unexpected violent attack, most likely at close range, offered without warning] in real life?.

Irrelevant, immaterial, and not for public discussion. But that really is the contingency for which the civilian carries a firearm.

Suonds as if you could benefit from some quality training.

 

[bricz75]

I didn't read all the posts and don't know if this was mentioned: Something to be considered is how good a person is at magazine changes. If a person has been competing at IDPA and is good with changes, it seems a single stack should suffice.

 

[SocialAnarchist]

OldMarksman


Quote:
If I say I am comfortable and feel adequately protected with my XDs .45 and 2 magazines why try to convince me I am not?

Who would try?

How about you and several others here.

By the way, how would you intend to make those two magazines useful for self defense?



You make the undocumented conclusion that I have not practiced making rapid magazine changes. I have already stated what my intentions would be in a scenario where I am forced to shoot.

Quote:
Or the guy with the 5 round revolver, or a...

I carried a five round revolver for a time. Discussions such as these made me the think very differently, some time ago. The links in Post #122 were very helpful then.



Good for you. I used to carry a 1911. For many occasions it was too big and bulky and was easily spotted. Hence my change to the XDs.

Quote:
Carry what you want, in the caliber you want, with as many rounds as you want.

Alrighty. But might it not be useful to provide some useful information to help people with the choice?

Telling someone that they need a high capacity pistol and multiple reloads is only useful if they believe they will be in a scenario where they need that. My XDs and 13 rounds is more than adequate for where I live, work, and shop.

Quote:
I don't care what your choice is.

Nor so I.

Seriously? You must not even read what you post if you believe that.

Quote:
But I will say this, spraying 30 plus rounds at a bad guy in the hopes of hitting him 9 times (30% that someone quoted) seems like a good way to hit and potentially kill innocent by standers.

Off topic.

Not at all. If one of the reasons for carrying a high capacity firearm and spare mags is the potential for missing 70% of your shots then it definitely is not off topic and bullets flying into a crowd of bystanders is not good at all. You and others have repeatedly mentioned hit/miss potential so why is it off topic when I quote your stats?

Quote:
Exactly how many times have you faced this [the unexpected violent attack, most likely at close range, offered without warning] in real life?.

Irrelevant, immaterial, and not for public discussion. But that really is the contingency for which the civilian carries a firearm.

100% relevant if you are portraying yourself as some kind of expert on self defense shootings and weapons choices.

Suonds as if you could benefit from some quality training.

Sounds like you are making assumptions based on conjecture with no basis in fact.

I suppose I will walk away from this beofre someone decides to ban me for being argumnetative.

Enjoy your conversation, I am out.

 

[OldMarksman]

I didn't read all the posts and don't know if this was mentioned: Something to be considered is how good a person is at magazine changes. If a person has been competing at IDPA and is good with changes, it seems a single stack should suffice.

Thanks, bricz, that was mentioned.

My comment was that in a real SC situation justifying the use of deadly force, I would be very hard pressed to react quickly enough and get shots in target timely without changing magazines.

Consider someone running at you at five meters per second and closing the distance in a second and a half. Can you recognize the situation, move, draw, and fire quickly enough to effect a stop timely?

I worry about how I would do, and that's without changing magazines.

A backup gun would be a lot quicker, I think.

I do carry a single column pistol, and sometimes a snub revolver with it.

This discussion has caused me to start re-thinking things a bit.

 

[Lohman446]

My question is the ability to generalize the data used and frankly the data itself. The 2-3 hits to neutralize an aggressor: is that an average number, a median number, or a random number. If average what is the standard deviation? For instance if we have six acts of defense that take 1 hit and a seventh that takes 14 we skew the data by using averages. Are we disregarding those encounters ending before shots are fired and likely under reported?

The 30% hit rate? Can we generalize law enforcement proficiency to the CCW crowd? As this exercise is about personal decisions does it generalize to you (the person making the decision).

I'm not challenging the method of calculation (a statistical exercise) I'm questioning the data

 

[HiBC]

Mr Social Anarchist,since you posed the question,how many times for you?

For myself,aside from the bear(zero misses,one ballistic failure,quite focused on the bead) I was unarmed when a person who was "out of sorts" pressed a loaded Mini-14 against my skull. He had been eating mushrooms and drinking Beam rye when he became "moody" and fetched his gun.
Chief Dan George from "Little Big Man" came into my head. I looked at him and said "Its a good day to die....but before I do,I will drink one of your beers".
I turned my back on him and walked to the fridge,got one,popped it,and looked at him while I drank it.

He started mumbling something and it was pretty much over.

Something just came to mind.For a couple or three decades,all I had was single action center fire revolvers and a semi-auto .22.
And I figured with my Super Blackhawk,I could face about anything. We were using up about 100 lbs of wheelweight a month. Getting 6 hits on a 10 in dinger at 50 yds was routine,thumbing fast.
A friend made me a 1911 in 38 Super,but it was my SBH I had real confidence in.

I do not have any illusion that a single action wheel gun is "better"..or as good,of a combat weapon.
But those SASS folks get business done. They know the only have 5.

Brother and I had a little shooting match once. He had his 44Automag. I had my SBH. Each had a chunk of firewood on the table.
I drew,cocked,fired. Firewood hit the ground. I holstered. He said "Keep shooting" I said "Its dead"

My point? Somebody trains up spray and pray with a Glock will have different stats than a SASS shooter,in my humble opinion.

On mag changes, If you miss too much,you are out of luck.Sorry. If I burn off seven rounds,despite your stats,I believe I'd find my front sight by #3 even if the first 2 were point and hope.. THEN its time for me to relocate around the nearest corner,or otherwise disengage and change magazines while gaining cover.
If you want to look at dismal stats, inject exposure time as a variable.While you shoot your 21 rounds,are you exposed to three shooters for three times as long? Two seconds of extreme violence ought to "Get me three steps toward the door"

 

[OldMarksman]

My question is the ability to generalize the data used and frankly the data itself. The 2-3 hits to neutralize an aggressor: is that an average number, a median number, or a random number. If average what is the standard deviation? For instance if we have six acts of defense that take 1 hit and a seventh that takes 14 we skew the data by using averages. Are we disregarding those encounters ending before shots are fired and likely under reported?

The 30% hit rate? Can we generalize law enforcement proficiency to the CCW crowd? As this exercise is about personal decisions does it generalize to you (the person making the decision).

I'm not challenging the method of calculation (a statistical exercise) I'm questioning the data

As previously stated, more than once, the "data" are assumptions.

Those who have participated in realistic FoF simulations can make their own assessment of the reasonableness of the per shot hit rate assumption. I happen to think that it is reasonable.

Those with an understanding of the human anatomy and the ability to make topographical simulations of wounding patterns can think about the number of hits that might be necessary to stop. There's no right answer. Sometimes it takes one, sometimes ten. Do you question John's assumption? Are you somehow thinking that you should rely on fewer than two or three hits? Remember, two shots through the same lung are most unlikely to effect a physical stop timely.

But for the vthird or fourth time, try your own assumptions and see what kind of answers you get.

 

[JohnKSa]

I can not see any sense in doing calculations on how many rounds you might need! In a gunfight.

Carry a reliable 9mm pistol, double stack, with night sights, And an extra magazine,...

...Glock 19 4th gen, 15+1 and a Glock 17 spare, 17 rounds.

That's certainly one approach. If you conceal carry a double-column handgun in the service pistol category and a spare magazine (pretty much what most folks would consider the maximum for conceal carry) then the value of looking at the numbers is much reduced.

The issue is that it's far more common for people to conceal carry much less capable/capacious carry guns while mistakenly believing they are prepared for a scenario that involves one or more determined attackers. In that case, looking at the numbers can provide valuable insight.

If I say I am comfortable and feel adequately protected with my XDs .45 and 2 magazines why try to convince me I am not?

If you are comfortable and feel adequately protected then why would you bother reading a discussion about how many rounds to carry?

On the other hand, if you have questions about whether what you carry makes sense for reasonable scenarios, then wouldn't you rather have someone give you a real answer instead of just reinforcing your preconceptions?

If it's just about how you feel, then you'll feel better just going on as you have been and without trying to get other points of view. Sure, it's fun when people agree with you, but if you're going to get worked up when someone provides information that doesn't fit with your preconceptions then you're better off just skipping this kind of discussion entirely.

On the other hand, if you want to base your actions on more than just how you feel...

I don't care what your choice is.

It's hard to understand why a person who doesn't care about other people's carry choices would be reading a thread about other people's carry choices. It's even harder to understand why a person like that would complain about statements they construe to be negative commentary on their carry choices while simultaneously claiming not to care what other people think.

But I will say this, spraying 30 plus rounds at a bad guy in the hopes of hitting him 9 times (30% that someone quoted) seems like a good way to hit and potentially kill innocent by standers.

It's a bad strategy. And it's a strawman because it's not a strategy that anyone has espoused on this thread.

100% relevant if you are portraying yourself as some kind of expert on self defense shootings and weapons choices.

This is also a strawman.

Pointing out how the probabilities work out for a given set of assumptions isn't portraying one's self as an expert on self-defense shootings and weapons choices. It's just pointing out how the probabilities work out for a given set of assumptions.

Look, there's a TON of material on this thread--if you differ with the actual material that's been posted on the thread, just quote what you disagree with and go from there. With so much material available, it should be easy to work with what's actually been posted instead of coming up with strawmen instead.

The 2-3 hits to neutralize an aggressor...
The 30% hit rate?...
...I'm questioning the data

The numbers you're questioning aren't "data", they are, as clearly stated multiple times, assumptions made to provide a reasonable framework to work with. If you don't like the assumption of 2-3 hits required for neutralization of a determined attacker, or the assumption of a 30% hit rate per shot, you can make a different set of assumptions. In fact, I did just that in one earlier post when I ran the numbers for a 35% hit rate. JC57 also ran some numbers for hit rates of 50% and 66% with at least 6 hits required out of 12 available and 6 hits out of 17 available. In another thread, I provided charts that can be used to provide insight with virtually any assumed hit rate and capacities from 5 to 11 rounds when one assumes that at least 4 hits are required.

So can we plug in just any assumptions? It doesn't make sense to use assumptions that are obviously inconsistent with the real world. For example, it wouldn't make sense to assume that a single shot will always stop a determined attacker or that a defender could be expected to hit 100% of his/her shots. The better the assumptions chosen, the more useful the results of the analysis will be. If actual data can be acquired and properly interpreted, then plugging that data into the calculation in place of the assumptions could be expected to provide very good insight.

 

[Lohman446]

If they are assumptions and you are incorrectly assuming on the low side you are making the very error you accuse me of. I'm asking for a defense of the data. It's assumption as the defense invalidates the data and thus makes the calculations from it pointless.

 

[OldMarksman]

You make the undocumented conclusion that I have not practiced making rapid magazine changes.

Not at all.

The issue is how quickly you can make one, and whether that will likely suffice when you are being rushed at close range by someone moving at five meters per second with contact weapon.

Telling someone that they need a high capacity pistol and multiple reloads is only useful if they believe they will be in a scenario where they need that. My XDs and 13 rounds is more than adequate for where I live, work, and shop.

I don't know about "high capacity" and I don't have much faith in "multiple reloads".

I have discussed John's analysis, in which he concludes, based on some assumptions, that a capacity of less than nine rounds may not be a prudent choice.

 

[JohnKSa]

If they are assumptions...

They are assumptions.

I'm asking for a defense of the data. It's assumption as the defense invalidates the data and thus makes the calculations from it pointless.

It's not been provided as data, nor claimed to be data, and therefore it makes no sense to defend it as data.

If you don't like the assumptions, make other assumptions and run the numbers for those assumptions. Just keep in mind that you shouldn't expect to get useful insight from the results unless you make reasonable assumptions.

The point of the calculations is that by making a range of assumptions that cover the range of reasonable scenarios, one can gain insight into the probability outcomes even without having to rigorously verify the assumptions.

For example, can a determined attacker be stopped without any hits? Of course not--if he stops without being shot then he obviously wasn't determined. What about 1 hit? Maybe, but it's commonly taught that handgun bullets are not very effective and we should expect that it will take more than one solid hit? So what about 2? Well, that's the assumption I used when I posted my first thread on this topic. Is that the absolute right answer? No, in fact if we try to come up with an actual figure, it would probably be best expressed as an average that isn't a whole number.

But that's not really important because even if that's not exactly the right number, when we run the scenario with that assumption, we still gain insight into a scenario where 2 hits are required to neutralize an attacker. If we want more insight, we can run the numbers again with 1 hit required, or maybe 3 hits required.

 

[OldMarksman]

If they are assumptions and you are incorrectly assuming on the low side you are making the very error you accuse me of. I'm asking for a defense of the data. It's assumption as the defense invalidates the data and thus makes the calculations from it pointless.

I hate to put it quite this way, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

We have not been discussing data.

The calculations are far from pointless. They tell us something that the average person who shoots at a stationary target in slow fire, and who may have seen too many "one shot stops " in screen fiction, might not have considered. They are illustrative; they can be varied, using different assumptions.

Don't like the assumptions? Run your own, several sets of them, and evaluate the sensitivities.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Perhaps more time should be spent on situational awareness and trying avoid having to pull your pistol in the first place rather than imagining scenarios where you will play OK Corral and need 39 rounds to win.

Situational Awareness is a great thing, Everyone should have it to the best of their ability.

But it's often brought out as a trump card.
"Oh well that situation will never happen to me cause I have situational awareness" denial that any particular bad situation could happen to them.

Truth is if it was such a powerful skill we would have no need at all for a gun period.
Let's say you have total awareness, Not even the crickets evades your observation.. Can you say you're at this level every waking moment? can you honestly say that someone could not walk up to you in a non threatening manner and produce a viable violent attack.. or draw a firearm that escaped your view and attempt to rob you?

Do you think all muggers look like crack heads and have a weapon visible 20 yards before they approach you as they lock onto you as a target?

Personally I say carry what you want, If you're at peace with your gear setup then why should anyone else care?

And believe me don't take this post as me trying to convince you of carrying something else, or more of it or what ever.
If all you carried was a 2 shot derringer, I'd at least be happy you have a gun at all.

Most of us will never need a gun, situational awareness or not.. statiscily it's just a low probability.
But there is no denying that more is more in this department only you can decide how much is "enough".

I just want you to remember if situational awareness is radar, Some bad guys have stealth.

 

[Big Shrek]

I just want you to remember if situational awareness is radar, Some bad guys have stealth.

As the attack in Finland shows quite clearly,
a running man with a knife is dangerous as heck.

It takes time for the human brain to process violence...
to figure out what is really going on...then decide on
what action to take...self preservation or defense of others.

In wartime it's easy to respond, in peacetime, when shopping...
well, in the EU i'd say look for the jackwagon who's yelling
aloha snackbar and shoot him in the head...if your country
allows self defense firearms, which most don't...good luck with that

 

[JC57]

I did create my own spreadsheet, and the numbers that JohnKSa posted are exactly what I get from what I set up, using probability formulas I dug out of my old college textbooks.

It's really straightforward - works the same way coin tosses or die rolls do. The question you are asking, with a coin toss model, is if I toss 6 fair coins, what is the probability I will get at least 2 heads? The answer is - 89%.

So that is the same concept as if you shoot 6 rounds, with a 50% chance of hitting with each round, then the chances you getting 2 hits are the same 89%.

If you change it to an unfair coin, that only comes up heads 30% of the time, then the answer changes to 58% chance of getting at least 2 heads out of 6 tosses. Same as if your hit probability is 30%.

That's all John is doing - running those calculations. It is based on two assumptions that you have to make:

Assumption 1: How many total effective hits do you think you have to make in order to prevail in whatever scenario you are trying to prepare for?

Assumption 2: What is your likelihood of making those hits?

There is no 'data' in this model. Data would be actual collected measurable real life occurrences that could then be used to choose realistic assumptions.

The only reason for this sort of exercise is for any individual to realistically evaluate their own individual choices. The orginal question was about how much is "enough," and so this is an attempt to frame that question in such a way as to be able to answer it. "Enough for what?" is the followup question.

Enough to stop a single attacker, assuming that your individual accuracy (shot placement) is sufficient for a 1-shot stop, 80% of the time? Ok, that's easy, run those numbers. I would need a 2-shot capacity to give me a 96% probability of winning that encounter.

You can pick any set of assumptions you want to, and then see how the numbers play out.

Again, the question is "how many rounds is enough" and you are trying to determine "enough for what?" The numbers are to quantify the "what."

Otherwise, just carry whatever you feel like and let it play out however it does, and don't ask how much is enough. "Enough" becomes whatever you feel like carrying.

But this is good solid analysis. I have a degree in Mathematics so I do understand this stuff (though it has been a while since I had to use it), but I had never really applied it to this question before. Somewhat eye-opening.

 

[Lohman446]

I'm not questioning the math portion of the calculations. I'm questioning the data used. Telling me that two oranges plus five bananas equal 7 pieces of fruit is mathematically accurate. When there are really one orange and no bananas it is not accurate as an answer to how many pieces of fruit there are.

The weakness of the argument is the assumed data. Defending the technical calculations do not address the fact they are based on literally made up data.

 

[JohnKSa]

Defending the technical calculations do not address the fact they are based on literally made up data.

They are not based on data at all, they are based on assumptions.

If you don't like the assumptions used, pick other assumptions (e.g. one orange and no bananas) and run the numbers for those assumptions instead. In fact, that's a great idea--run it for a wide range of assumptions--that's what I did to make the charts I posted in my first thread on this topic. Doing so will allow you to gain insight into how different assumptions change the probability of the desired outcome.

If that kind of insight is useful to you then you'll be better off for having done it. If you don't care about things like that then don't waste your time on it.

I'll try to explain what's going on with an example. Imagine that I'm designing a flood control system for a city. I want to know how my flood control system will handle 10 inches of rain in 24 hours so I run a simulation using standard, accurate, and accepted calculations. Then I run other simulations in inch increments from 5 inches of rain to 300 inches of rain in 24 hours. Now, without having to find any data at all about how much it is likely to rain on the city in a 24 hour period, I can still accurately answer questions about how the system is likely to handle various flooding scenarios. I now have a lot of insight into how the system will perform even though I've done no research at all into the rainfall data for the city.

I haven't done the research to determine if 300 inches of rain in 24 hours has ever happened, or could ever happen but I can still say what is likely happen if it DID happen. Likewise, when I started my test runs with 5 inches of rain, I'm not claiming that's the least amount of rain that could happen or that 5 inches of rain in 24 hours is likely to happen, but I am saying that IF it does happen now I know the likely outcome.

Now let's say someone keeps trying to assert that unverified "data" is being plugged into the algorithm. The fact is that NO data is being plugged in. Assumptions are being plugged in, and the results from a particular set of assumptions provide accurate insight into what would happen in that particular scenario--even if that scenario is unlikely to occur or even if it never happens at all.

In the same way, these calculations provide insight into the probability of various outcomes based on the input assumptions. A person can plug in a range of input assumptions covering the reasonable range of scenarios and gain insight into the outcomes.

So, now that you understand what's going on, what assumptions would you like me to run for you? Give me a few scenarios with reasonable hit rates, reasonable capacity numbers and the required number of hits for neutralization and I'll run the scenarios through the calculation so you can see the results.

...using probability formulas I dug out of my old college textbooks.

Your solution sounds more elegant than mine. I brute forced it with a spreadsheet that actually creates all the possible outcomes and then sums and weights the outcomes to get a final result. Not pretty, but accurate.

Again, the question is "how many rounds is enough" and you are trying to determine "enough for what?" The numbers are to quantify the "what."

Right. It's important to understand that they actually quantify sort of a best case scenario. There's nothing that tries to account for the possibility of being injured and having your hit rate degrade partway through the incident or maybe actually being unable to shoot your remaining rounds after that point. There's nothing that accounts for firearm malfunctions. There's nothing that accounts for fixating on a single attacker and continuing to waste shots shooting him even after he's been "neutralized" even though there's another attacker that needs "attention". There's nothing that accounts for being attacked in a way that doesn't even allow you to get to your gun and use it. There's nothing that accounts for the possibility that an attacker might be so hyped on adrenaline (or drugs) that he can soak up a whole magazine of solid hits (instead of just 2 or 3) and still keep coming.

In other words, there are many ways the outcome of a real world scenario with a determined attacker could actually be worse than the probabilities suggest. The probabilities just give you a feel for how things would play out, on average, if the outcome just boils down to what your hit rate is, how many hits you need, and how many shots you have on tap.

Somewhat eye-opening.

I can remember having the same thought when I finally got everything running. I thought that others might be interested in the outcomes and that's why I posted my first thread on this topic.

Obviously some people were interested, but posting the results opened my eyes in other ways. It appears that some people are very attached to their preconceptions.

 

[CDW4ME]

Its typically a waste of time to try overcome rationalizations based on:
-Location: "good" vs "bad" places, criminals & psychos there are immobile / stick to the "bad" areas.
-Day vs night: determined psychos are not anticipated in the daytime (Nevermind numerous examples otherwise.)
-Psychic ability to anticipate criminal behavior in others: sociopaths there predictable in time and location, avoid them.
-Skill level: they predict accurate shots and effective hits against a lone attacker.

Its not that "we" care what anybody carries, rather addressing faulty logic one chose to share.