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

Very nice work, especially for those who are mathematically inclined.

Capacity can be linear over some reasonable range... 5 to 10 shots perhaps, but above that could become logarithmic. The difference between 5 and 7 shots should count more than the difference between 16 and 18.

Glock 36 vs. Glock 17 - how can 7 rounds of .45 ACP out-point 18 rounds of 9mm? Something seems amiss there.
 
Last edited:
Somehow the averages seem to me to have little usefulness. For me, the questions are (1) can I conceal it and carry it with reasonable comfort, (2) can I hit a moving target at, say, 21-25 feet consistently in very rapid succession, (3) is it reliable, (4) what about the effectiveness of the load?

For (1), if the answer is yes, a difference of few millimeters in thickness will not affect my choice at all; the size of the grip, which has not been shown in any of the proposed tables, may determine whether the answer is yes or no; lighter weight will help but it will hurt item (2).

For (2), more weight helps, so averaging a weight score that is higher for a lighter gun with some other parameter doesn't work for me. Too small a grip can hurt. Too short a sight radius won't help, either. A much more effective cartridge could really work against you unless the gun is heavy enough.

For (3), it's a yes or no proposition--you don't weight that with anything.

A higher score on (4) would reduce the score on (2) unless the gun rated pretty low on (1).

I wouldn't give a gun with a 17+1 capacity a higher rating than one that held 10 shots for civilian concealed carry.

The gun with the highest weighted score might not meet anyone's needs very well.

I've seen people walk out of a store with a scandium alloy Centennial and a couple of boxes of .357 Magnum loads selected because of the light weight, small size, and effective cartridge; I've read and heard that they are too painful to shoot; I've heard other people opine that recoil is unimportant in a serious SD situation; and I've heard still others say that the gun is very ineffective in simulated tactical training because of the near impossibility of hitting a second target quickly. I've seen people who were very disappointed in their ability to hit a person-sized target consistently and rapidly with the latest small .380, which was very easy to conceal. Guns that do better than either of these may or may not be convenient to carry.

It's a series of trade-offs, and I don't think a single score will point one to the answer.

Rather, one should probably look at a number of go/no-go parameters, and these will likely vary depending upon the build and attire of the buyer.
 
AndrewH, interesting. Thanks for the suggestion.

spacecoast: Capacity pretty much follows what you suggested. The difference from 5 to 7 shots has much more effect on the score than from 16 to 18 shots.

As per the Glock 36 versus the Glock 17, currently, the calculation for capacity has a very steep slope up to 7 rounds. Going above 7, the slope levels off. I based this on some initial research I have read that states that the vast, vast majority of civilian CCW self-defense shootings are over in 7 or less shots. I'm actively searching for additional research to confirm or deny this, and will adjust the calculation as necessary. Also, the difference in the calculations based on caliber is spread out a bit more than what it should be (in my opinion). So those two factors are the reason why the Glock 36, with 7 rounds of .45 ACP, currently has a higher Firepower Factor than the Glock 17, with 18 rounds of 9mm.

OldMarksman: I definitely understand where you are coming from. One thing I did not mention was that the calculations based on size (length, width, height, and weight) do have a "minimum" where further reductions will not increase the rating. Basically, once you hit a certain point, any advantage in a lower size or weight would be defeated by decreased usability. Right now, the "minimum" for each measurement is close to the dimensions of a Kel-Tec P32 or P-3AT. So, even though a NAA mini-revolver would technically be more concealable, it won't get a higher rating than the Kel-Tec P32. I may adjust the "minimum" for each dimension as I continue to tweak the calculations.

I've received a lot of great feedback and suggestions, and I really appreciate it. Constructive criticism is what I am looking for. But in the end, I know that I won't be able to please everyone with how these numbers are calculated. And even if this particular feature doesn't "do it for you", I hope that everyone will find some use out of the site once it is launched.
 
Such modeling might be fun to play around with, and even having variables to add, modify, or delete would make it even more fun. I would play with it, but would find it of little personal value. The handgun I choose for personal carry is more subjective, how the grip feels, the balance, the looks, the gun mags opinions, .... I seriously doubt such modeling would influence me much, but note my personal opinion of mathematical modeling is that it is a lot of subjective opinion of the person(s) developing the formula used. I do think it might be fun to play with for a few minutes.
 
Hook686, I agree 100%. The final decision on a handgun, especially one that you will be trusting your life to for daily concealed carry, is of a very personal nature. It is not my intention to say that Gun A is better than Gun B because it gets a higher rating with my calculations. I understand that there are factors that are impossible to model -- mainly how a particular gun fits your hand and meets your own specific requirements and desires. The whole point of this rating system is to help people narrow down their choices of the dozens, possibly hundreds, of handguns out there to a reasonable number of potential candidates to be focused on for additional research and hands-on testing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top