Hokkmike
Member
If the robbers have any sense it is.
Well, past a point, capacity is of questionable value. Assuming the attacker(s) really pose a threat, the odds of a defender getting to stand there and expend a bunch of rounds without getting shot in the process are questionable. There's obviously a point of diminishing returns. But too little isn't a great idea either. When the attacker is moving trying to avoid being shot and the defender is moving trying to avoid being shot, misses are inevitable and when adrenaline starts pumping, it's not uncommon for it to take more than one solid hit to incapacitate an attacker. Planning for 'One shot, one attacker stopped.' in a real world encounter is self-delusion.I've finally come to the realization that semi-autos are worse than useless. Those giant magazines make the owner think he's got unlimited ammunition, so he just bangs away, putting holes in everything and everyone except his opponent.
I know it's common to hear this kind of argument, but it just doesn't align with what I see at the range. Sure, a person who is really good with a revolver can shoot better than someone who isn't that good with a semi-auto. But when the skill levels are comparable, people tend to shoot better with autopistols than revolvers, especially when time is critical. Pound for pound a semi-auto tends to recoil less and a 5-7lb trigger is easier to manage than one that is 10-12.If you want to address that 30% hit rate, take away his wondernine and give him a revolver.
Yet another internet gun forum thread that can be used by the gun control factions and the governments to bolster their argument that no citizen needs more than ten rounds.
,,,,,
Then your toast anyway !! ?I would have felt severely undergunned with 5 shots. Now days you should assume that the bad guys will have hi-capacity mags.
^^^Kinda how I look at it. 5 armed BGs against against a 73 year old(or any age for that matter) with any one handgun are very bad odds.Then your toast anyway !! ?
Never said all of them, but good percentage of them are.A sig 365 with 11 round capacity versus a 5 shot snub:
View attachment 1188325
And this cannot be overstated. Probably most here don't have any in-person pro-RKBA activist experience, but over the past few years, having attended state senate hearings on proposed legislation, it is invariably brought up, that even within the "firearms community," we don't believe we need more ammunition capacity for self-defense -- our side's arguments are typically based on the 2A, its purpose and the philosophy of the RKBA.Good point as in quite a few court discussions and failures to overturn mag bans, the judge has explicitly cited that higher capacity guns and mags are not needed.
Seven rounds improve the chances of success (as defined by making 4 or more hits with a 30% hit probability) to between 10% and 15%. About 4x better odds than with 5 rounds. Success would happen about 1 in 8 times as opposed to 3 in 100 times. Going to 8 rounds improves the chances of success to 1 in 5 times.Most of your semi-auto pistols designed for concealed carry (i.e., compact) only hold 7 rounds.
How much do those extra two rounds improve the "bad guy encounter" success rate? (Using that 30% hit probability.)
Assume that:
With those assumptions, the chances of success are 3.1%. That is, if that scenario is run 100 times, on average the defender will fail to get 2 hits on each attacker 97 times.
- The defender can shoot as well as the average cop in a gunfight--that is, hitting with 30% of the shots fired.
- There are 2 attackers
- It takes exactly 2 hits to neutralize an attacker and the defender immediately realizes when an attacker is neutralized and doesn't waste any shots continuing to shoot an already neutralized attacker.
- The defender has 5 shots available and gets to fire all 5 shots without getting killed or incapacitated first.
15% is way over-optimistic. According to your link, the improvement is less than 10%. And, while going from 3% to 12% is a 4x improvement, I would not consider 12% chance of success stellar odds . . .Seven rounds improve the chances of success (as defined by making 4 or more hits with a 30% hit probability) to between 10% and 15%. About 4x better odds than with 5 rounds. Success would happen about 1 in 8 times as opposed to 3 in 100 times. Going to 8 rounds improves the chances of success to 1 in 5 times.
Here's another way to look at it.
Let's say you want at least even odds of success (as defined by making 4 or more hits) with only 5 shots. That takes a 70% hit rate to achieve. A 70% hit rate with 5 shots gives between 50% and 55% chance of success.
What about doing the same with 7 rounds? That would take a 50% hit rate to achieve. A 50% hit rate with 7 shots gives a 50% chance of success (making 4 or more hits before running out of ammo). The extra two shots provide about the same odds while relaxing the accuracy constraints from having to hit 7 out of 10 shots to only having to hit with half the shots.
We can keep going up (with 10+1, the chances of success with a 30% hit rate are between 40% and 45% and are 70% with a 40% hit rate) but at some point the bullets coming back your direction are going to become a major factor. 2 determined attackers shooting back could easily prevent a defender from getting the chance to expend all their available ammo and then the calculations don't provide much insight.
Here are some plots:
The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Capacity, Hit Rate, Multiple Assailants and some thoughts...
The Leading Online Forum for firearms Enthusiaststhefiringline.com
There are two real takeaways in my opinion:
1. The fact that people do tend to prevail in self-defense encounters in spite of the poor odds is strong evidence that it's rarely necessary to deal with determined attackers. Defenders are winning more often because the attackers give up/run, less often because they are actually being incapacitated. That's very useful knowledge for a couple of reasons.
2. It helps provide a better understanding of one's capability when armed with a CCW. There's a tendency, when putting on a CCW, to have the attitude that we're ready for whatever comes our way during the day. In reality, there are some pretty severe limitations on our capabilities and as Dirty Harry says, "A man's GOT to know his limitations."
I think it also shows that there needs to be a balance. Too few shots, and it's very hard to make the hits no matter how well you can shoot. Too poor a hit rate and it's very hard to make the hits even with a high-capacity firearm.
Correct. That's not what I said though.15% is way over-optimistic.
Seven rounds improve the chances of success (as defined by making 4 or more hits with a 30% hit probability) to between 10% and 15%.
Nope. That's the real takeaway--if you are faced with multiple determined attackers, you're in real trouble.And, while going from 3% to 12% is a 4x improvement, I would not consider 12% chance of success stellar odds . . .
That's just one of many factors that it doesn't take into account. It's not anything at all like a gunfight simulator, it's just a probability calculation that provides insight into how hard it is to make multiple hits with real-world gunfight hit rates.The factor this graph does not take into account is what is the attackers hit probability?
If you pocket carry, this doesn't tell the story at all.A sig 365 with 11 round capacity versus a 5 shot snub:
View attachment 1188325
So 5 armed determined attackers, 2-3 hits to neutralize each attacker. Assuming 2 hits for 3 and 3 hits for 2, that means 12 hits, at the LE rate that works out to 40 shots.Odds are extremely good that if a defender with a 5 round gun faces 5 attackers and the attackers don't run when the shooting starts, the defender will hit empty before getting to the third robber, let alone the fifth. The idea that one bullet per attacker is sufficient to reliably stop determined attackers in a dynamic encounter is pure fantasy. People miss in real world encounters and it often takes more than one hit to incapacitate. Lance Thomas used a 5 round revolver in his first gunfight against two robbers. It took him 3 rounds to stop the first attacker and fortunately for him the second one chose to run. He did the math and never put himself in a situation with that few rounds at his disposal again.
There will be some emotional impact all right, but the odds are very strong that it will be the defender who is impacted hardest when he is forced to switch to a knife to face the last 3 or 4 attackers.
Of course, that also assumes that the defender isn't killed or incapacitated before getting a chance to fire all available rounds.
Correct. That's not what I said though.
But, your graph shows LESS than 10%, more like 8%, at most."Seven rounds improve the chances of success (as defined by making 4 or more hits with a 30% hit probability) to between 10% and 15%."
Correct. 5 determined and armed attackers is, as one would expect, even without doing any calculations at all, a very bad situation. Essentially unwinnable unless the defender is extremely skilled and lucky and/or the attackers are extremely inept and unlucky.If you don't assume 1 shot stops, or that they run, I think you assume that whatever you're carrying, it won't be enough.
Correct--the improvement is less than 10%. But I didn't say that 7 rounds at 30% increased the chances of success "BY between 10% and 15%", I said it increased the chances "TO between 10% and 15%".But, your graph shows LESS than 10%, more like 8%, at most.
If you pocket carry, this doesn't tell the story at all.