How Many Rounds to Carry

[Officers'Wife]

I makes me sad that so many gun people feel the need to instinctively adopt an anti-intellectual attitude whenever anyone attempts to use statistics or reason as a lens through which to analyze gun stuff.

Unfortunately graphing this particular happening is just too broad to make the numbers meaningful. There is no practical way to include all the possible variables including the person doing the shooting. With my uncle's experience in Vietnam how would he have fared the first time when my grandfather in the hedgerows of France or vice versa. Both were well-trained infantry but how to you put the differences in experience into numbers?

Mathematics is a wonderful instrument for items that can be defined exactly. With a transit and surveyors chain and a little trig 22.3 acres is a valid answer. Where the third from the left sheet of the barn's roofing tin in a hurricane is going to land is a little more faith than science. With statistics on human behavior and performance the percentage of doubt shoots up to close to unity. It's not so much an anti-intellectual attitude as it is mere common sense filling in what can't be defined.

 

[Kleanbore]

Unfortunately graphing this particular happening is just too broad to make the numbers meaningful.

I respectfully disagree.

There is no practical way to include all the possible variables including the person doing the shooting.

As has been said more than once, and that was not the intent.

Mathematics is a wonderful instrument for items that can be defined exactly.

And for prediction, and for analyzing uncertainty and risk.

 

[Officers'Wife]

I respectfully disagree.

And for prediction, and for analyzing uncertainty and risk.

Disagreement is the basis of improvement and horse races.

But by the same token statistics builds in the uncertainty level. I'm not saying now and will not in the future say the graphs are not valid. Only that the degree of doubt (or uncertainty if you prefer) is very high to be universal.

 

[Kleanbore]

From another board....

Perhaps it is an unfortunate sign of the times. For anyone to look at look at John's analysis and expect to be able to use them to prudently choose a defensive weapon would indicate a fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding about a lot of things. And so, I think would discounting them because they do not and cannot do that.

The analysis was not intended for that purpose.

The first and most essential step in gaining the ability to make an informed choice is training--training in shooting, tactics, and in the fundamental laws regarding the civilian use of force.

Next items on the list come from sources that may reside elsewhere.

What does one need to know?

1. Something about how a lawful defensive use of force incident might be expected to unfold--distances, circumstances, tell-tall signs, speed..
2. What kind of shooting skills would be appropriate, and how they differ from the suare range. Drawing fast, shooting quickly and repeatedly and effectively and sately at a target at which we had not been planning to shoot.
3. Something about wounding effectivness.

What we learn about the first of these will never be exhaustive.

The second of these can be worked on in a good training course, or in a simulator, or probably best in FoF training. But those will not provide the reality of fear and surprise, nor will they the into account the extreme importance of avoiding hitting innocents, and most fall short in training for shooting at a fast moving targets.

But they can help us learn and prepare, and they should be useful in telling us how well we can shoot under good conditions--the maximum achievable hit rate for us.

The third starts with learning something about penetration performance. We don't have to shoot to learn that. Does our ammunition of choice meet FBI standards?

How many hits it will likely take (or may take) will be a guess, but it can be an informed guess. Massad Ayoob recommends that people keep on hand a copy of Gray's Anatomy and refer to it from time time. I would add that studying the FBI report on handgun wounding effectiveness--the medical parts--can help us to better understand that anatomy book, at least to some extent.

The above should give one some basis for understanding the envelope, as it were, for reasonable assessments of hit rate and of the number of hits required.

Then, and only then, will you be able to apply John's graphs in the making of a selection.

Actually, you should have been able to take some guns off your list early in the process.

That's not all, however. Obviously, the gun that might make you most effective might, and probably will, be too bulky and heavy for reasonable everyday carr,

Back to the judgment call.

 

[KeyboardCommando]

For a rifle, standard loadout for a quick battle is 120 rounds. Long term is more. 120 rounds equates to 4 30 round mags or 3 40 round mags.
For a pistol, I'd say it depends on the sidearm 40-90 rounds sounds right.
For anything else, well, then you have to get technical.

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

All good information, all irrelevant. I really don't know how someone could read through the first post and come away with such a mistaken impression of what's going on with the graphs.In case it's not obvious, a person who carries pretty much the max ammo load they can manage isn't going to get much out of the graphs. The people who might actually learn something from them are the ones who are thinking about minimizing the capacity they can get away with. The graphs can provide some useful insight into why that might not be a good idea for those who might not understand so easily otherwise.

They can also provide some insight for people who do carry small ammo loads--it provides some perspective on a what kind of capability they will have (or more accurately--won't have) in a sort of "best case scenario". The graphs are certainly not intended to do that, nor could one use them for that purpose.The assumptions made to use the graphs are not made "in a fight" and are not based on, nor should they affect the mindset of a defender during a fight.The graphs aren't intended to provide insight into how many hits one needs for an assailant nor to predict it. Nor are they able to do so. What they do is allow a person to look at how a changing the number of hits required will change the probabilities of running out of ammo before getting the required number of hits.Yup, that is correct. But it is not particularly insightful. It is possible to gain more insight and narrow the range somewhat by using the graphs. They can't predict how many you will need to succeed--nothing can do that--but they can give you some insight into how many rounds you need to reduce your chances of failing due to insufficient capacity to an acceptable level.An excellent strategy and nothing in this thread or the graphs suggests otherwise. In fact, they can provide some insight into how much increased skill can improve the odds of surviving a gunfight.Of course, you're welcome to do so. I wish you had taken the time to actually understand their purpose and how they work, but I suppose what I wish is neither here nor there.

I was addressing an entirely different question. I was addressing the question "But how does a shooter who only ever shoots at a range or in staged scenarios determine a realistic "hit rate probability"?"

 

[Kleanbore]

I was addressing the question "But how does a shooter who only ever shoots at a range or in staged scenarios determine a realistic "hit rate probability"?"

That is a an excellent question. The answer is the it cannot be done.

The shooter who only shoots at a square range at a target that is at a known location certainly cannot. Staged seceantritos? How well will depend on the type of scenarios and the variety of them.

But even then much is missing.

As I mentioned before,

Those will not provide the reality of fear and surprise, nor will they the into account the extreme importance of avoiding hitting innocents, and most fall short in training for shooting at a fast moving targets.

They can probably give an indication of a best case under less than ideal conditions

And that can be very useful. One is not trying to choose a point on the graph.. rather oner is trying to decide what areas of the graph fall within the plausible, and which do not..

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

Disagree. The ONLY place you're going to determine a "realistic hit probability" is on the range. That's it. There is no other arena or venue where skills will be built, tested, refined, and made automatic.

I am a very active competitor...but I don't compete for "prizes" and accolades. I compete with one purpose in mind...To sharpen and maintain skills.

Granted...many so-called "staged scenarios" aren't "realistic" insofar as the targets aren't shooting back (which is why I love simunitions and force on force) but building the ability to engage targets in less than perfect positions, on the move, etc..etc...etc...are invaluable.

HOWEVER...in training, shooting scenarios, with a good training partner "scenarios" are changeable. They will call out fails, and engagement order on the fly, there are so many variables or gremlins as I call them that force immediate assessment and recognition and engagement and can/will stop you in your tracks, make you engage, re-engage....too much to list.

That is where you will learn..

 

[JohnKSa]

Unfortunately graphing this particular happening is just too broad to make the numbers meaningful. There is no practical way to include all the possible variables including the person doing the shooting.

That would be a relevant objection if this were a gunfight simulator, or a model intended to predict the outcome of gunfights or the probability of surviving a gunfight.

It is none of those things which means that the objections are, sadly, not relevant at all.

"But how does a shooter who only ever shoots at a range or in staged scenarios determine a realistic "hit rate probability"?"

If a person were trying to model a gunfight or predict the outcome of a gunfight, then knowing a realistic hit rate probability would be important. These graphs won't let a person do that. They're not intended to and indeed they can't.

What they can do is allow a person to generate some hypothetical scenarios and look at whether or not a particular capacity/hit rate probability and number of hits required will result in a workable scenario (one where there is a reasonable chance of making the required number of hits) or an unworkable scenario--one where the chance of making the required number of hits is remote.

For example, let's say that a particular capacity/number of hits required scenario shows that even with a 90% hit rate the shooter will fail 99% of the time. That is, the probability of running out of ammo before making the required hits is 99%. Would you say that is a scenario that is workable? How can you say that without knowing a "realistic hit rate"? Because if a person can hit 9 out of 10 shots in a gunfight and still have virtually no chance of making all the hits required to succeed, that's not a workable scenario. And we can say that even without knowing anything about "realistic hit rates".

Remember, the plots can't tell you your chances of survival in a gunfight, but they can give you an idea about what scenarios make success way too difficult.

The ONLY place you're going to determine a "realistic hit probability" is on the range. That's it. There is no other arena or venue where skills will be built, tested, refined, and made automatic.
...
That is where you will learn..

I am, absolutely, unequivocally, not disagreeing with you at all. You have made a good post, full of accurate and insightful observations, but lacking any relevance to the topic at hand.

Going back to my analogy in an earlier post, the pocket calculator I have invented is not intended to be an artificial intelligence device capable of replicating human intelligence and emotion. But if you take the time to understand how to use it, it can provide some useful results.

 

[Kleanbore]

Disagree. The ONLY place you're going to determine a "realistic hit probability" is on the range. That's it. There is no other arena or venue where skills will be built, tested, refined, and made automatic.

The operative word in the question was "determined". Assessed, measured, quantified.

Grip, trigger control, sight picture....can be developed and practiced and improved on the range.

But one's range results are most unlikely to be very indicative of "realistic hit probability" in a defensive situation.

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

The operative word in the question was "determined". Assessed, measured, quantified.

Grip, trigger control, sight picture....can be developed and practiced and improved on the range.

But one's range results are most unlikely to be very indicative of "realistic hit probability" in a defensive situation.

Are you freakin serious?

No I mean...Are you freakin serious?

That is the ONLY place where your "hit probabilities" are going to be realistically gauged. If you can't hit the broad side of a barn at any range, then we know we need to work on that. BUT...the mechanics of shooting are the easiest to teach. It is all the other components of defensive shooting that get taught in the range dirt as well. Mental, physical, all of those get put together in a place where they can be practiced.

I know I can do the whole "bullseye" thing all day. I can teach someone to hit the high center chest in about ten minutes. Bullseye shooting is not the challenge. Possessing the ability to shoot tiny little groups is all good. All day, every day I can do it. Cool. Yay. Not applicable in a fight beyond the ability to control a trigger and sight alignment.

BUT what is important...way beyond that is building the ability to do it under fight/flight, movement, pressure, oddball shooting positions, moving, loading, moving to cover, moving away from threats, in other words in and under all the conditions you can replicate as close to a fight as possible. Once you blend those things, you get a really good yardstick on what realistic hit potential will be in a fight. You know your mechanical skill level while dealing with more than "sight alignment, trigger press" and with the added mental components of the human animal in a fight.

A graph will never replicate any of those things and tell a shooter what their hit probability will be.

 

[JohnKSa]

A graph will never replicate any of those things and tell a shooter what their hit probability will be.

I can tell you for certain (and definitely not for the first time in this thread) that none of the graphs I made will do that. Tell you what, since this seems to be a problem, I'll load up some extras and you can just come back read them one at a time after you post your next 5 responses.

Hey, these graphs don't predict hit rate probability.

The graphs are not designed to provide the user with a realistic hit rate probability.

One (of many) things that the graphs can't do is output a hit rate probability.

For those who wish to determine a realistic hit rate probability, I have bad news. The graphs won't generate that information.

In case it's not obvious, the graphs provide very limited output information. In particular two pieces of information that can not be generated by the graphs are: a realistic hit rate probability and: the amount of water required to supply a 3 person mission to Mars.

That is the ONLY place where your "hit probabilities" are going to be realistically gauged. If you can't hit the broad side of a barn at any range, then we know we need to work on that. BUT...the mechanics of shooting are the easiest to teach. It is all the other components of defensive shooting that get taught in the range dirt as well. Mental, physical, all of those get put together in a place where they can be practiced.

I know I can do the whole "bullseye" thing all day. I can teach someone to hit the high center chest in about ten minutes. Bullseye shooting is not the challenge. Possessing the ability to shoot tiny little groups is all good. All day, every day I can do it. Cool. Yay. Not applicable in a fight beyond the ability to control a trigger and sight alignment.

BUT what is important...way beyond that is building the ability to do it under fight/flight, movement, pressure, oddball shooting positions, moving, loading, moving to cover, moving away from threats, in other words in and under all the conditions you can replicate as close to a fight as possible. Once you blend those things, you get a really good yardstick on what realistic hit potential will be in a fight. You know your mechanical skill level while dealing with more than "sight alignment, trigger press" and with the added mental components of the human animal in a fight.

Excellent post, by the way!

 

[KeyboardCommando]

You'll find that often enough military cares more about how much a soldier can/should carry, than anything else.

After all, in modern engagements you have support units and reinforcements. You can get a mag from someone else.

Personally, I was always fond of the idea of simply using the enemies caliber so you can pick up supply from conquered areas/units. The interchangeability of barrels/chambers/etc nowadays helps with that idea.

 

[Kleanbore]

That is the ONLY place where your "hit probabilities" are going to be realistically gauged.

"Hit probabilities realistically gauged" ? Not at the range. Fundamental shooting skills developed and worked on? Yes.

Why? Someone said this:

...do it under fight/flight, movement, pressure, oddball shooting positions, moving, loading, moving to cover, moving away from threats, in other words in and under all the conditions you can replicate as close to a fight as possible. Once you blend those things, you get a really good yardstick on what realistic hit potential will be in a fight.

Most ranges do not allow that.

Defensive training facilities are where that is done. Some are outdoors. Not all.

The ones that only allow shooting toward a linear backstop are not the best. Better to go into an area with a three-sided berm and handle targets in various directions that you have not been looking at.

Actually, a really good modern laser simulator, if the gun that is used recoils, is pretty good, too. You can program in numerous scenarios and see how many hits you achieve in realistic situations and whether you do so quickly enough. Movement, obstacles, innocents in the way, and lack of backstop are taken into account. There are shoot/no-shoot scenarios. Watch Rob Pincus in one. Hear him tell how he got rattled.

The only things that the best ones cannot do is objectively is assess which hits would effect a stop.

But here is no way to do that anywhere, And when it is done someday , it will be in a simulation facility.

A graph will never replicate any of those things and tell a shooter what their hit probability will be.

OF COURSE NOT!!!!

What the statistical analysis can do is help you understand, once you have decided what your best case hit probably may be, via shooting under the most realistic conditions possible, how many rounds might be needed to effect a certain number of hits.

If you think the answer would be intuitively obvious without John's graphs, you have not taken the time to think through the problem.

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

"Hit probabilities realistically gauged" ? Not at the range. Fundamental shooting skills developed and worked on? Yes.

Why? Someone said this:



Most ranges do not allow that.

Defensive training facilities are where that is done. Some are outdoors. Not all.

The ones that only allow shooting toward a linear backstop are not the best. Better to go into an area with a three-sided berm and handle targets in various directions that you have not been looking at.

Actually, a really good modern laser simulator, if the gun that is used recoils, is pretty good, too. You can program in numerous scenarios and see how many hits you achieve in realistic situations and whether you do so quickly enough. Movement, obstacles, innocents in the way, and lack of backstop are taken into account. There are shoot/no-shoot scenarios. Watch Rob Pincus in one. Hear him tell how he got rattled.

The only things that the best ones cannot do is objectively is assess which hits would effect a stop.

But here is no way to do that anywhere, And when it is done someday , it will be in a simulation facility.

OF COURSE NOT!!!!

What the statistical analysis can do is help you understand, once you have decided what your best case hit probably may be, via shooting under the most realistic conditions possible, how many rounds might be needed to effect a certain number of hits.

If you think the answer would be intuitively obvious without John's graphs, you have not taken the time to think through the problem.

Don't try to use semantics to. The "range" is where it's done. It may not be the public square range, I don't go to public ranges because of the high amateur and Bubba population and lack of ability to train. If you want to try to use BS semantics then there is no discussion. "Defensive Training Facilities"....all have live fire ranges. That is what we're talking about here and especially in the context of my statement it should have been glaringly obvious.

 

[JohnKSa]

I've got an idea. Since some apparently find the graphs difficult to understand, let's drop that topic and talk about training and what kind of ranges are available at various types of facilities instead.

 

[Kleanbore]

Don't try to use semantics to. The "range" is where it's done. It may not be the public square range, I don't go to public ranges because of the high amateur and Bubba population and lack of ability to train. If you want to try to use BS semantics then there is no discussion. "Defensive Training Facilities"....all have live fire ranges. That is what we're talking about here and especially in the context of my statement it should have been glaringly obvious.

Yes, it should have been. Mea culpa. Semantics.

The so called "ranges" around here do not allow drawing from the holster or moving. The state owned ones do not even allow rapid fire. If you ask anyone around here if they know of a "range" around here that will allow those things, you will hear a longer answer about gun clubs and range facilities.

My gun club allows those things for members (NRA insurance rules).

And yes, from the context that should have been obvious. I'm afraid it blew right by me.

Your description "do it under fight/flight, movement, pressure, oddball shooting positions, moving, loading, moving to cover, moving away from threats, in other words in and under all the conditions you can replicate as close to a fight as possible" is pretty much spot on.

 

[Kleanbore]

I've got an idea. Since some apparently find the graphs difficult to understand, let's drop that topic and talk about training and what kind of ranges are available at various types of facilities instead.

Have started a new thread on that.

 

[paulsj]

For typical American carrying G26 would be one or two extra G19 or G17 magazines. For those carring five or six shot compact revolvers I recommend two or three revolvers.

I am not average, therefore, when I have handgun with me it has one in the chamber and 11 in magazine. No spare mags. I feel very comfortable with that.

 

[Balrog]

After all this discussion, statistical calculations, and graphs, I think the answer boils down to this:

Carry a Glock 19 and 2 spare magazines.

 

[Danoobie]

I can only carry so much weight. What should l leave behind, in order to carry an
extra mag, for the gun which I haven't used once, in the ten years of CC, the EDC
flashlight, which I use @ 4X a day, or the multi-tool, which I use @ 10X a day?

 

[hdwhit]

CrekyOldCop wrote:
How does a so-called shooter who does NOT "ever shoot at a range" or in "staged scenarios" determine a realistic hit rate probability?

That wasn't my question and to the extent you're trying to turn my question back on itself it is an irrelevancy and I'm not asking how an untrained shooter determined the "hit rate probability".

What I'm asking is how someone who only has the experience of shooting at a range or a staged scenario knows what their "hit rate probability" is going to be under the very difference circumstances and stress of an actual shooting; a question which all of your "eating dirt" comments totally ignore and fail to address.

Number one...I never assume anything in a fight other than "I have to get efficient, effective hits, right now, otherwise there is going to be a hole in my meat wrapper".

Again, totally irrelevant. If you had read the question in the context of John's tables it would have been apparent that the assumption of two shots was made to have an entry-point into John's table. Thus, the rest of your is response totally fails to answer the question.

And as far as the "I never assume anything" bravado, note that unless you already know both your "hit rate probability" in an actual self-defense situation and the number if shots it will take to bring down a bad guy, these figures must be assumed, so if John's charts are to have any meaning to most shooters, they are assuming (or projecting, or deriving) something.

Blood, sweat, range dirt, burnt powder, splashed lead....

And please stop talking to people like you're the only one who has ever fired a weapon in the line of duty.

 

[hdwhit]

Kleanbore wrote:
Neither averages nor any other statistical measures or predictions can provide a "definitive answer to the question". See Post 1.

And I said exactly this in my post. What part of that are you taking exception with?

 

[hdwhit]

Kleanbore wrote:
No one has said as much.

Actually, you did. See your own Post #1 where you say that averages mean nothing. If they mean nothing then obviously you are dismissing them - something you emphasize in the remainder of your bullet point.

 

[hdwhit]

Kleanbore wrote:
And it tells us nothing more. What do we do with that nugget of information?

Well, it tells you don't take a five shot revolver into a scenario where the statitstics say you're going to need seven shots to stay alive.