Usefulness of a single number (weighted calculation) to compare CCW choices?

From a coding standpoint it seems intriguing.

In the end, I'm attempting to rank guns on a scale that is mostly subjective, using only finite, objective specifications.
Click to expand...
Sound idea - introducing subjective ranking of subjective criteria would result in a can - what'd we call it - "Combinatorial explosion"?

The table could include values derived from published specifications - one such might be "recoil energy" derived from data on the round and mass of the firearm. This would provide an objective number from which one could subjectively derive an "ouchie" factor which could be used to adjust "caliber effectiveness" and "weight" numbers.

It could provide a point of diminishing returns for cases where user input puts "lightweight" and "firepower" towards the top of the weighting.

Practically speaking, if a firearm gets a "bump" for "firepower" the exact same round must be used for the recoil energy calculation - attempting to allow for "I'll carry .357 but practice with .38 Special" would be, IMHO, inelegant.

I don't know about its ultimate value for target audience but if I had more time, smarts and youth I might be tempted to undertake the enterprise for its own sake. Sounds like a spot of fun.
 
I actually think it is a good idea. I probably wouldn't base my decision on a CCW solely on the data your system would provide, but it gives enough information where it might get me interested in a firearm enough to go down to a local shop and handle one. Also it would be nice having all that information about a particular firearm in one place.
 
Too many parameters will make it useless by becoming confusing.

Based upon using it for concealed carry, my preferences for data are:
Length
Width
Height
Weight
These are objective factors.

All else is subject to debate and disagreement; that’s what subjective means

To forestall debate and disagreement of the tabled data I suggest that the value of each datum be based upon a percentage of actual measurement of all the guns in the table.
Example (for weight):
The lightest gun in the table is 21 ounces and the heaviest is 48 ounces. The differential is then 27 ounces.
Four guns being rated: 21 oz., 24.6 oz., 28.7 oz., 48 oz.
The lightest is (48-21)/27*10=10
Next is (48-24.6)/27*10=8.7
Next is (48-28.7)/27*10=7.1
Heaviest is (48-48)/27*10=0.0
(If I made a math error in all that then correct it in your mind.) :D

Now what’s going to happen when a gun which weighs only 19 ounces is added? If the table is made in a spreadsheet, such as Excel, the reference weights may be in 2 “master cells” which are referenced by the equation and the only thing required to rate all the guns with the new one added is to change the reference weight. Of course there should be a note to indicate the last update.

Getting the data is going to be the hard part. Listings on the websites are getting be more glitz than guts.
 
All else is subject to debate and disagreement; that’s what subjective means
Click to expand...

Pretty much but he's going to need something to derive "caliber effectiveness" from. Marshall & Sanow may not be universally accepted, it may not even be "right" but one has to start somewhere. "Muzzle energy", "diameter" and any number of other criteria fail to satisfy.

Citing and using M&S is objective. Being M&S isn't.

Qualify, disclaim and move on.

Keep it too "objective" and every answer, based on width, height, weight, caliber, etc. will be a .44 Magnum Derringer.

Therein lies the coding challenge.

User input = weighting, select from "handguns" where ...

Not like something as grotesque as a 2" long, 1" grip frame, 4" wide firearm exists but, to the extent one might be found, that is where strict objectivity will lead you.

I doubt anybody here would use it. We're simply too marinated in prejudice. For the hidebound on a gun forum to use it, it would require the ability to exclude row returns based on...
Lock, any.
Lock, visible.
MIM parts.
Forged.
Investment cast.
Exclude semis (a number of folks here will not buy into a blanket "reliability is no longer a concern" qualifier).
Exclude revolvers (too thick about the midsection).

The challenge (and the fun) will entail trying to make sense of the whole thing.

If it was simply:
Length
Width
Height
Weight
Any school child could work it out with an afternoon of web surfing. Why engage in the effort when the answer is so easily obtained?

And, yes, I suppose one will have to use manufacturer's published data. The obvious alternative being to personally purchase every handgun in production.
 
George Nonte attempted to rate various service pistols in his 1980 book Combat Handguns. Unfortunately, he used a sort of sliding scale that resulted in identical features being rated differently from one gun to the next. Another thing to consider is diminishing returns. When a gun is made smaller and lighter, it's generally also harder to shoot well, so you can't say a gun that's smaller is better or worse, unless small size is the overriding desire. I have a compact .45 that's all steel, and a Lightweight Commander. The former gun is much smaller, but heavier. I've decided that the gun has "too much smallness", and the extra weight makes it shootable. It's hard to rate a compact gun higher when it's heavier, but smallness and lightness can be taken too far. The same sort of situation exists with the j-frame .357 revolvers; are they too small and too light for the .357 cartridge?
 
I belatedly realize I've missed another, rather important, published objective criteria:

MSRP.

Won't help if the algorithm returns "STI VIP" as having a "good" number if the user's budget is 400.00.

Oooo. Gummy minefield ahead.

While I'll admit to admiring the concept and envying the ability, if I were to attempt something similar I fershurashell wouldn't put it on the intertubz - my skin just isn't that thick.

I believe the most important thing to derive from the OP is that a table is being assembled with all the data noted in the OP. We (me and the mouse in my pocket and anyone else interested) will be able to download the table and SQL-torture the thing in whatever fashion we deem appropriate.
 
I think it would be very tough to do a single number.....


I think perhaps a 3-5 catagory "profile" where Conceal ability is one of the 5 ratings .... on a 1-10 scale


Please disregard the numbers I'm throwing out because they are arbitrary numbers..... It's the idea that's important.


Profile might look like this :

Glock23:

Firepower : 7 ( which will generally be based on the caliber and available ammunition )
Reliability: 9
Conceal-ability: 6
Ease of Maintenance: 10
Recoil: 7 ( Lower is better )

Bersa Thunder .380 : ( I don't own one , just going by reviews and arbitrary info)

Firepower: 3
Reliability: 8
Conceal-ability: 8
Ease of Maintenance: 7
Recoil: 4 ( Lower is better )


Think of all of the racing games , or war games where choosing a car/weapon to use , you get ratings on the various aspects to help you fit your own needs dependent on what you are looking for.





Now to get your matrix , you may need to do polls on all the popular Forums such as ....

" What is the most important factor in size when looking for a CCW " (W/L/H)

With say 500 responses of various websites you may be able to create a generalized base to create your rating on.



For Ease of maintenance you can create that number based on " Number of separate parts , recommended cleaning methods , etc .... ( Such as Glock getting a higher rating than most 1911's . )


Reliability would be a tough one , but in the case of reputation it could be done based on modifications needed to make it shoot reliably , number of different types of rounds it will feed easily based on feed ramp and supported vs unsupported chamber etc. ( This one may be a tough one to add in because EVERY gun can be reliable with enough care , maintenance and work on it )



Because each person is looking for a specific gun for a specific purpose and they usually have two to three things they want to balance ....

"' I want one that's not too hard to conceal , has enough stopping power to be effective in most situations , Ease of maintenance isn't important because I have all kinds of time, but it must have VERY small perceived recoil "

In this sentence they will take average on most categories as long as the Perceived Recoil is a great rating. Hence their option to balance their own scale.
 
Last edited:
Please disregard the numbers I'm throwing out because they are arbitrary numbers..... It's the idea that's important.


Profile might look like this :

Glock23:

Firepower : 7 ( which will generally be based on the caliber and available ammunition )
Reliability: 9
Conceal-ability: 6
Ease of Maintenance: 10
Recoil: 7

Bersa Thunder .380 : ( I don't own one , just going by reviews and arbitrary info)

Firepower: 3
Reliability: 8
Conceal-ability: 8
Ease of Maintenance: 8
Recoil: 4


Think of all of the racing games , or war games where choosing a car/weapon to use , you get ratings on the various aspects to help you fit your own needs dependent on what you are looking for.
Click to expand...

Good observations.

However, neither "reliability" nor "ease of maintenance" can be reasonably derived from manufacturer's published data and an "internet consensus" would be cross-threaded with the entire point of the enterprise.

From a pragmatic standpoint I can see assigning a value to every semi-auto vs. every revolver. However, this would lead some to the uncomfortable observation that a SIG P226 (to pick a number purely at random) is rated as "less reliable" than a third-tier revolver.

Glock vs. SIG vs. H&K vs. Ruger vs. S&W vs. Kimber is one can of worms.
Korth vs. Taurus vs. S&W (with a frame lock) is quite another can of worms.

Both "reliability" and "ease of maintenance" will, of necessity, remain subjective and anecdotal.
 
This is very true , and that, I think, may be the hardest part of my idea. To come up with the categories that can be quantified as more than simply opinion .... BUT at the same time..... All review websites DO in fact report a rating based on the reviewers opinion.

Perhaps gathering this information from from several reputable review sites would be a great centralized rating number..... Such as

http://www.metacritic.com/film/




Ease of Maintenance I think can be derived from number of parts needed for a field strip , manufacturers suggested Field strip methods vs full strip intervals and time frames.

But then again the Reliability would be quite the tough comparison.
 
The wish-list is getting longer and longer. Just a bit more and the idea will become completely unworkable.

Physical dimensions and weight used to be available to any school child. A few months ago I could go to a maker’s website and get these. Try it today. You get pictures. You get “ours is the best”. You’ll likely get barrel length and weight, perhaps overall length. Some might still give all the data, I haven’t looked at all, but is the information there for every make?

S&W still gives good specs; Ruger now gives glitz.

Just like trucks; years ago you could get a brochure which listed technical information, today you get a list of upholstery colors and told that six-way speakers are an option.

Older models no longer made?

Merely getting dimensions will be an horrendous effort.

Firepower? Different bullets, different barrels, on and on and on.
Recoil? Elevation of the barrel relative to center of mass, relative to the grip, muzzle velocity of different bullets versus weight, and on and on and on.

I believe starting with the basics is the way to begin. Add other things as these become known or a meaningful calculation is obtained. Otherwise it will end up with a matrix that won’t fit into a football field.

Just sifting the wheat from the chaff from all the Glock fans will tax the capacity of the greatest think tanks. :D
 
This would indeed be an interesting and challenging problem. I commend you for tackling it but I don't envy you. I doubt whether condensing all handgun attributes into a single numerical value would be truly useful in the long run. The data would still be subject to people's interpretations and people would still argue about it.

For example, bullet energy at 5 yards could be a factor but it would seriously underrate the .22 WMR because that round performs far out of proportion to what its ballistic table would indicate as it does more damage to water jugs than the .38 special at close range.
 
Turning buying a gun into math homework.

I enjoy exploring gunshops, and such. I like listenening to experienced old coots. I cant make a decision about a gun without fondling it... trying it on for size. And most of all... I cant allow someone else's opinions to over ride my own... Based on some mathamatical formula. Remember... BumbleBees cant fly.


Glenn Dee
 
The bumblebee cannot fly. The bumblebee heeds not, and flies anyway.

If bumblebees could read they would be walking.

There are two gun stores here and a few pawn shops. There are probably 300 handguns on display. Am I going to ask to handle each one before making a purchase? No. I’m going to consider only those about which I have some prior information. A listing of the properties of guns will add to my prior information.

So—the suggestions have ranged from height, weight, length, breadth, recoil, power with light bullets, power with heavy bullets, power with those bullets in between, snagging protrusions, maintenance, durability, resale, locks, no locks, heavy trigger, light trigger, safeties, finish, capacity, plastic, does the color match my cat, and is it a Glock...

to...

It cannot be done and should not be done.

BTW, a study was made and published in, IIRC, Smithsonian Magazine some years ago wherein it was found that the bumblebee makes more efficient use of its wings than other insects by creating a whorl of air on the upstroke which adds lift on the downstroke and the bumblebee does very well, thank you.

Jersey_emt,
It’s unfortunate that you can read. :eek:
 
It's going to be hard enough to integrate width, height, length, weight, caliber, and capacity into a single number. It is even not going to be easy to "only" combine size (width, height, length, and weight) into one number and firepower (caliber and capacity) into a separate single number.

The goal is to include width, height, length, weight, caliber, and capacity in the calculation. There's already enough room for subjective interpretation of these objective figures to make things difficult for me. The only other figure that I could ever see adding to the list is MSRP. But even that would be a long stretch, because some guns have a street price very close to MSRP, yet others are way off. Also, regional price variations can be significant.

Reliability, felt recoil, maintenance intervals, ease of field stripping, and every other suggested "add-on" are things that the user is going to have to research on their own. My goal for this is to simply assist someone narrow down their choices for a concealed-carry handgun. There are a dizzying number of guns available, and if I could help someone "filter out the noise" and give them a short list of 5, or oven 10, candidates to focus their research on, I have succeeded.
 
So, with a little work, here is a preview with some sample data.

ccw_factor_preview.jpg


The exact process of calculating the 3 figures (Firepower Factor, Concealability Factor, and CCW Factor) is nowhere near complete, but here is the overall idea:

  1. Each data point is translated to a standard scale (5-point rating). This is where the most tweaking needs to be done. It is going to be a logarithmic scale, so small differences on the low end will have a much greater effect than on the high end. For instance, an increase in width from 22 mm to 23 mm will cause the rating to drop much more than going from 33 mm to 34 mm.
  2. The scale for each data point is weighted. This is where the users' input will come in. In the sample data above, I used weights that made the most sense for me. For instance, to calculate the Concealability Factor I assigned the following weights:
    • Width: 0.45
    • Weight: 0.25
    • Height: 0.20
    • Length: 0.10
  3. The final result is a rating with a theoretical maximum of 5.0. A 5.0 rating would be impossible to achieve for the CCW Factor, as it would require a high-caliber, high-capacity firearm that is impossibly small and light. And even if it were possible, it would not be usable. (Imagine a 10mm or .44 Magnum in a .25 ACP pocket pistol frame).

    It *is* theoretically possible for a particular handgun to receive a 5.0 rating in either the Concealability Factor or the Firepower Factor. Just not the combined CCW Factor.

Let the flames begin! ("A puny Kel-Tec P-3AT gets a higher rating than my full-size, steel 1911!?!")
 
Last edited:
jersey_emt, I applaud your efforts and you seem to be on the right track. The data that you posted seems to show a bias towards semi-auto pistols vs. revolvers. I would be interested to see how my trusty .38 Detective Special scores in your system.
 
Yes, currently guns with a capacity of 6 or fewer gets low scores. I will probably raise them somewhat so that 5-shot and 6-shot revolvers get a higher firepower rating, so it doesn't seem that revolvers aren't given an unfair comparison.
 
Jersey,

Although I prefer revolvers I believe the capacity should still be an equal factor for revolver vs. semi. It’s not an unfair comparison; more rounds are more rounds.

In rating firepower are you considering ft/lb of the bullet on impact? Bear in mind that a revolver with a 3” barrel has a 3” barrel whereas a semi with a 3” barrel has an actual 2” barrel +/-.

And I suppose the CCW Factor is a combining calculation of Firepower and Conceal ability?

Ya know what? This could get hairy but you’re on the right track.

Clay
 
Revolvers and semiautomatics will still be rated on the same scale for capacity. It's just that currently, a capacity of 5 or 6 rounds will give a very significant drop in rating compared to 7 or 8 rounds. I might tighten up the scale slightly, because I'm definitely in the "fewer but well-placed shots is infinitively better than a large number of marginal hits or misses" crowd.

If I do so, it will only be a slight change, probably less than 3%. It's just one of the many tweaks that I will make over time.

As per caliber, yes the scale is based (somewhat) on power at the muzzle, but it's not a direct correlation in any way. Barrel length is currently not taken into account, as handgun barrel lengths don't significantly affect muzzle energy. Of course they do, to an extent, but not enough to make a big difference in actual shootings.

It's something that I will definitely consider, but I would need to do a lot more research before even attempting it.
 
for some reason this thread has had me thinking for the last few days.

Here are some idea's

Break down the numbers a bit further to make it easier to rate, and less subjective.

For instance.
Size
capacity
firepower
weight

So size would have to be overall dimentions. Maybe an area thing, or maybe just the lenght, width and depth added up.

If you do a pocket gun it should get a 10, desert eagle a 1.
You would have to do the math to see how far the numbers break down.
For instance, if your calculations show a 1911 govt and commander have the same size number, then it might have to be broken down further.

Capacity, again single shot derringer is better than a pointy stick, but it still rates a 1. 19 rds of 9mm rates a 10. The math has to be done so that the 5 shot revolver and 7 shot 1911 still show up around the middle. Or it could just be a flat out round count to the numbers. Anything more than 10 make it 10.

Firepower.
Some of this is subjective, and what load you use. BUt just run the basics.
500 S&W is going to rate a 10. a .22 lr is going to rate a 1. If you use the standard loads not plus p rounds you can do the power factor calculations and rate the other rounds in between.

Weight
again you have to do some math here.
a kel-tec would be a 10 a desert eagle would be a 1.
But again somewhere in there is the 1911 commander and lw commander.
HAve to show that your weights calculate a split in the number there for the 8 oz difference in weight, to show real world feelings.

So some examples
without doing the math, but how it should feel.
the govt 1911,
size- 4
capacity 5
firepower 8
weight 3
if you average this, it gives you 5

commander
size- 5
capacity 5
firepower 8
weight 4

average 5.5

lw 1911 commander
size- 5
capacity 5
firepower 8
weight 5
avg 5.75

glock 21
size 3
capacity 10
firepower 8
weight 6
average gives you 6.75

DE
size 1
capacity 5
fire power 10
weight 1
average 4.25

kel-tec
size 10
capacity 5
firepower 4
weight 10
average 7.25


again, the numbers are without figuring the spread. But you get the idea.
There would only be one or two guns that might get a 4.
something like a 22 lr full size revolver. But it would probably hold 9 rds and get something similar in score to the de.

Nothing will get a 10, by virtue of the small guns either not carrying a large enough bullet, or not having enough capacity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top