Is a single stack enough?

[OldMarksman]

"Enough" becomes whatever you feel like carrying.

Unless "whatever you feel like carrying" turns out to be insufficient.

Has that been said before? Yes, in Post #3: "A single stack is enough. Except when it's not.". John said that.

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

Yep!

And congratulations for taking the initiative, JC.

...this is good solid analysis. ...I had never really applied it to this question before. Somewhat eye-opening.

Yes indeed! I first saw John's post on this some years ago, and to me, it was very eye-opening.

But as I posted then, and on a number of occasions since, it probably presents, for a particular set of hit rate and effectiveness assumptions, the best case.

Why? It is based upon the defender firing no more shots at an attacker after a particular bullet finds the critical hidden internal anatomical part. That could happen with the first shot--theoretically.

Is that realistic? Do you train that way? Can you train that way? Does anyone really train that way?

No, no, no, and no. It is most unlikely to happen that way.

Rather, when that man in the lot asking for jumper cables or whatever has made his way as close to you as you can safely permit, and he, or the one from whom your attention has been distracted, rushes and forces you to shoot to save your life, you, it you have availed yourself of any good training, will likely start by shooting several times--say three, maybe--in about a second. You just cannot afford to stop and evaluate the effects of each one as might be done by watching repeated slow reruns of the video after that fact.

A good convenient way to reflect upon that is to watch some scenarios on The Best Defense, and watch how Mike Seeklander shows us to do it.

Is this a criticism of JohnKSa's work?

NO! He has shown us some things that many of us had not considered at all.

Why did he make that little simplification? Well, what he did do was time consuming enough, and complicated enough when it came to explaining the results in an understandable manner.

I cannot imagine introducing the variable of how many shots beyond what might have been seen as potentially sufficient to the forensic scientist watching videos might be fired under the unavoidable pressures of the life-threatening moment.

One could try it, but to show the results in an understandably manner would, I think, require the use of moving colored graphics portraying 3D space--with sound.

But the fact that it would be very hard is not the only reason to not try it. We just don't need to introduce more unknowns. John has made the point. I think that most people here have a pretty good understanding of what he has done and why.

Why bring it up at all, then? Well, it should illustrate two things: (1) that John has probably presented the best case, and (2) that trying to figure out means, modes, and standard deviations is just not something that we figure out when we choose a gun.

 

[OldMarksman]

I'm not questioning the math portion of the calculations. I'm questioning the data used.

What "data"?

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.

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

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.

You still don't get it, do you?

 

[HiBC]

I don't know that it is about "getting it"
Its that "One up,One down,loss of face ego thing .

Do not re-enforce defeat.

If,unfortunately,we run over a cat on the road,there is nothing to be gained by backing up and running over the cat again,and again...

The cat just gets flatter.

In post # 42, the argument was "My competency/skills are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to take advantage of more mag capacity.

Now,a statistical matrix is offered whereby the effects of competency,or lack of it,can be factored into "Number of rounds likely to be required for a desired outcome"

And amazingly,it says "Bad shots need more bullets"

 

[Lohman446]

Let me be clear. Having too few shots is a problem. Having too many, with some caveats about not relying on equipment to overcome lack of skill or "spray and pray", is not a problem. The issue is we have not actually discussed if the magic number is 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 15, 17, or 3,527. All the high end calculations and statistical analysis that has been brandied about are based on unvalidated and unsupported assumptions. Is a single stack enough? Many argue no. Well are 14? If more is better why not 50? Or 100?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you want to know what seems to be the norm among respected tactical trainers, it is usually a Glock 26/19 ish sized gun with one or two extra mags.

Now sometimes those folks admit to carrying a J frame with acknowledgement of the downside of such.

If you brandy about some analyses that might explain some of this discussion.

It is cheap rhetoric to ask questions about 3,527 or 100.

I do suggest that you attempt some FOF and/or matches with a five shot gun. I've done it a few times. Also, when you have a five shot gun and 4 people are a threat - it makes you think. Been there, BTW.

As far as skill, if you carry a gun - I will be blunt - come up to speed. Saying you are incompetent doesn't cut it.

Instead of buying a new gun for folks who already have a decent carry gun (I know so many who do that), spend the $400-600 on some decent training. Yep, you may look stupid on your first outing but take it as a growth experience. It's better time and money spent than blather about safeties, ammo, etc. See if you can shoot several targets at speed and on the move.

Real folks don't buy the spray and pray argument. Trained folks don't do that. It is a strawman argument for those who bother to know what they are doing.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...spend the $400-600 on some decent training. Yep, you may look stupid on your first outing but take it as a growth experience. It's better time and money spent than blather about safeties, ammo, etc.....

Yes. It's about software (training and skill) -- not hardware. Yaking about hardware is more fun, but less to the point.

 

[K_Mac]

I have enjoyed this discussion. While, "Bad shots need more bullets" is the obvious conclusion, it isn't quite that simple.

I am always surprised at the level of confidence many have in, 1) predicting accurately when and where an attack is likely to happen, 2) the nature of that attack, 3) their ability to avoid such an attack, and 4) their ability to stop the attack easily and quickly.

These beliefs are often based on the probability that a firearm will never be needed and the ability to put most shots in the 10 ring from "self-defense" distance at the range. This is often expressed by something like, "If you can't stop an attacker with one or two shots, you should not be carrying a handgun."

Those of us who have spent time, effort and money studying and training for the unlikely need for lethal force know that excellent bullseye skill is not a good predictor of success. We also know that statistically it will take more than one or two hits to stop the threat and when mutiple attackers are involved the need for several rounds goes way up.

So how many rounds do we need in our carry weapon? I tend to agree that 10 or 12 is a reasonable number. I sometimes carry a smaller gun because it is better than nothing and I'm willing to take the risk, not because I think it is a great choice.

 

[Big Shrek]

If one focuses completely on shooting skill...
yet does not spend any time in Physical Strength Training....
nor bother to add Martial Arts skills to the defensive platform...
and doesn't learn Misdirection from Magic Acts to enhance draw from cover...

Liable to be in for a BIG surprise...

 

[pelican]

"Having worked over 200 GSW homicide cases during my career, I believe you will be out of time long before you are out of ammo. No matter what you are carrying."

18DAI post #11

Very sound words. Someone is probably going to go down when the first few rounds are fired.

I wonder what the reload statistics are for private citizens who conceal carry and actually use a handgun in self defence. My ignorant guess is that the reload percentage is very low.

As Glenn E. Meyer suggested, get some proper training and then keep on training.

Speed and efficiency are everything.

 

[fastbolt]

Another perennial question that always generates more varying opinions than agreement.

Folks, we can talk skillset, mindset, equipment and risk assessment all day and long into the night ... and never reach any definitive consensus that will appease everyone.

If you have to carry one type of gun/gear for your job or profession? Accept it and work on the skillset, mindset and awareness to the degree possible in your circumstances.

If you're a private citizen and have a "choice"? Don't let equipment options and analysis paralysis distract you from the rest of your life.

"Is a single stack pistol enough?"

Dunno. Might be enough in the hands of some people, but not in the hands of others. Might be sufficient to address the issues of one situation, but not another.

As a long time practitioner of some martial arts, I've seen my fair share of people who are technically proficient and knowledgeable, but who don't have the mindset, willpower or (stated) desire to ever use their skills against another human being, even in self defense. You think that's not the case when it comes to some people who decide to lawfully carry a weapon?

It's sometimes called the "talisman effect". Kind of like when some folks used to carry a rabbit's foot or 4-leaf clover (or other good luck charm). They seem to carry it hoping it'll never be necessary to use it, and perhaps hoping that carrying it will somehow make it less likely to need it? Who can say? People do things for the oddest reasons.

If the situation ever arises where someone has to fight for their life, whether or not it comes down to just an equipment issue making the difference is a toss of the dice.

Me?

Yep, I still choose to carry a single stack pistol or a revolver a significant amount of the time as a retirement weapon.

Yep, I've carried a service revolver, as well as double stack and single stack pistols as issued weapons at one time or another in my career.

I have a close friend who has been involved in a couple of shooting incidents. Both of the suspects in his incidents are deceased. He used a hi-cap pistol in each incident. He's an experienced firearms instructor. Know what he chooses to carry off-duty? It's varied now and again, including both 5 & 6-shot revolvers and single and double stack pistols ... but for the last couple of years it's been a Shield 9 (single stack), which was just recently replaced with a LCP II (single stack .380). I certainly can't gainsay his choice, as he knows his skills and realizes the daily risk assessment he faces.

Whatever you choose, for whatever reasons you choose it ... how well prepared are you to use it?

That's a question I typically ask someone who either proudly shows me their newest gun acquisition (off-duty/retirement weapons or regular CCW weapons), or someone who just decides they want to pick an argument about "my v. their" choices and opinions. If we're at the range, I suggest we go down range and discover whether they can actually use their choice, and how well, when running some increasingly difficult and unrehearsed drills.

Might as well try and see what might happen if the rubber were to actually have to meet the road. Still no guarantees of what might happen outside the training/qual/practice range, but sometimes such an experience helps point out some unrealized (denied) deficiencies in our training and skillset.

Suit yourselves, folks.

 

[fastbolt]

Yes. It's about software (training and skill) -- not hardware. Yaking about hardware is more fun, but less to the point.

Simple, but true.

 

[TailGator]

Regarding OM's assumptions: There were only two assumptions made. The first was that it would take two or three rounds to affect a stop. I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but that is completely consistent with the idea that handgun rounds are not reliable one-shot stops. He provided calculations on both two and three rounds. It is hard to have a beef with that.

The second was a 30% hit rate. That is the number that varies with skill. If you are pretty darn sure you are better than that, you can do the calculations with another number. You better be sure, though - it's your life at stake. With that in mind, do you want to err on the high side or the low? After all, the vast majority of us don't really know how good we are going to be when our target is shooting back.

FWIW, I followed the same sort of thought process, with similar numbers, a few years back, and changed my carry pistol from a 5-shot revolver to a pistol with a 10-round mag.

Everyone is, of course, free to make their own choice. Some of the people who are being criticized here are only trying to make sure that readers think things through and don't make unrealistic assumptions. This is not a private conversation, after all.

 

[JohnKSa]

The issue is we have not actually discussed if the magic number is 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 15, 17, or 3,527.

That's the beauty of this approach. You don't have to know the "magic number". You can run the calculation for a range of numbers to see what will happen as the assumptions change. That lets you get a feel for how varying the scenario will affect the probability of a given outcome.

And, while we haven't tried to prove the exact value of the "magic numbers", we already have an idea of what kinds of numbers we should run.

If we want some reasonable values for hit rate, we can either look for real world data or just run the numbers with a range of values. If you look at my previous thread on the topic, I ran the numbers for hit rates from 10 to 90% and capacities from 5 rounds to 11 rounds and created charts so one could get a feel for how the entire range of hit rates and a reasonable range of capacities might affect the outcome. In other words, the calculations let us get a feel for a range of scenarios without having to get bogged down in whether the hit rate is 30% or 35%, or 50% or 65%. We can run all the numbers and see how different hit rates will change things.

We know what the typical range of capacities for carry guns is so there's no need to run ridiculous numbers like 3,527, just to pick one example. We can run the calculations for a reasonable range of numbers (as I did in a previous thread) to get a feel for how capacity affects the outcome.

Likewise, we can pick a reasonable range of values for the required number of hits to see how things change with more hits required for neutralization or for more attackers.

So, now that you understand how it works, I'm willing to run some scenarios for you if you have some values you think are reasonable.

"Is a single stack pistol enough?"

Dunno. Might be enough in the hands of some people, but not in the hands of others. Might be sufficient to address the issues of one situation, but not another.

Right. One thing that the calculations can do is demonstrate that some kinds of situations are unrealistic with a given combination of skill and equipment. For example, if one wants to prepare for a determined attacker scenario with a better than 50% chance of success with a 5 shot carry gun, a hit rate of 50%, and the assumption that it will take 2 hits to achieve incapacitation, the calculation will let them know that they're not being realistic. With that hit rate, they will need more shots to break the 50% threshold. Or, from another perspective, with that capacity limit, they will need a better hit rate.

So how many rounds do we need in our carry weapon? I tend to agree that 10 or 12 is a reasonable number. I sometimes carry a smaller gun because it is better than nothing and I'm willing to take the risk, not because I think it is a great choice.

A very reasonable approach.

Some folks want to look at this from the perspective that the calculations tell them what they need to carry. One could also look at it from the perspective that the calculations tell them what they're prepared for or how much risk they're taking given a particular carry capacity and skill level.

For example, even people who understand the numbers might decide to carry a low-capacity self-defense gun. They should just keep in mind what kind of limitations that choice will impose on their response capability.

In an earlier response, I mentioned reading about people talking about using their carry guns to end active shooter scenarios, for example. A person carrying a 5 shot carry gun should understand that using it to go up against even a single determined attacker is not going to provide a very good chance of success. It's even worse against two determined attackers--assuming 2 shots per target are required for neutralization, a person with a 5 shot carry gun would have to achieve a hit rate of 69% or higher if they want a better than 50/50 chance of succeeding.

 

[OldMarksman]

....I followed the same sort of thought process, with similar numbers, a few years back, and changed my carry pistol from a 5-shot revolver to a pistol with a 10-round mag.

So did I. Exactly.

Some time later, for reasons other than capacity. I change to one with an eight round magazine. I was never really happy with that aspects, but otherwise I like the gun.

I just acquired a new one that holds twelve in the magazine. A good one, I think. It is very close to the five shot revolver in terms of dimensions, and only slightly wider than the eight shot one.

I had not been considering a new purchase at all. But the discussion in this thread made me consider all aspects very carefully, and I did it.

Was the old one "enough"? Probably, for many or maybe even most situations. Is the new one better? Obviously, or I would have spent the money. Is the new one any guarantee of success? NO!

This is a matter of risk management, and one decides bases on information, informed judgment, and one's personal willingness to accept risks unmitigated. I have plenty of friends who do not carry at all.

Do I care what they do? No. I do think that we on this board and those who advise us owe to others to help them make informed decisions.

 

[OldMarksman]

K Mac's post #167 bears repeating.

 

[Lohman446]

To me there come a point where it is likely your problem is the clock and not a lack of ammo. Two attackers who have determined the time and place of engagement. Two shots while getting off the X and addressing the second threat. We are talking 4-5 seconds there. If the second or, God forbid, third or fourth attacker is semi-competent and determined in that he or she did not flee when the shooting started I am not yet convinced the exact number of rounds are likely to matter. If they are not competent then I'm not 100% the magazine change after 7 shots is undoable. The failure of the small single stack is going to be comparing 19 shots to 46 (or more with a G19 with backup G17 magazines). I cannot envision a situation outside of my house where I'm going to be able to employ 46 rounds.

If I am attacked by 3 people and in the gunfire neutralize 2 I'm much better off than I was though as distances close so there is that

By the time I recognize the threat, assess that lethal force is appropriate, and draw from concealment I'm already at a major disadvantage. Competent and determined attackers, who have targeted me, probably don't even let it get that far.

But it's easy to carry a double stack? Perhaps but to me the width, specifically in the grip, is the hardest portion to conceal

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

OK - if you can't do it, you can't. So don't try.

I've seen people engage 3 targets from the draw with two shots each in about 3.5 seconds. Even a FOG like me could do that.

If you can't conceive of a situation where you might need 46 rounds, then you can't. The folks who fought in the Westgate Mall in Kenya were quite cognizant of their limited ammo.

You seem to be fixated on three guys who line up and surprise draw on you in a planned assassination. Might you conceive of being in something like the Westgate Mall where the fight is longer and you might need more ammo?

If you want to convince us that you can't defend yourself, you are doing a fine job of it.

 

[Lohman446]

I'm retreating at the first opportunity of retreat

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's a nonsensical statement. You can't guarantee that you can run away. If you can guarantee that, you don't need a gun ever. It has nothing to do with this argument.

We've discussed that avoidance is the best plan but as pointed out repeatedly to you, the game starts when you are in the fight. Then the analyses pointed out to you come into play.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

In my opinion, we prepare for when things go wrong, not right.

So, no. A single stack is not enough. When there are better options. Carry the biggest gun you can conceal. Also factory in, the bigger the gun the easier to shoot adequately.

Think of multiple attackers, missed shots, shots that fail to incapacitate (upper CNS / brain stem), etc.

Yes, carrying other mags is great. But the more round that you have in the magazine = more time in the fight and less time reloading.


I carry a full-sized Smith and Wesson M&P 9L with a Surefire x300u. That's 17+1 and 2 spare magazines on me. With 3 more in my bag. Medical stuff as well. 2 tourniquets, quick clot, trauma gauze, trauma shears, the whole 9 yards.


Again. Prepare for the worst. Not the best.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk