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.
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.
And please stop talking to people like you're the only one who has ever fired a weapon in the line of duty.
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".
Seriously? That WAS your question, I didn't turn it back on itself, it was already headed in reverse. I answered the question you asked.
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.
Um...no...your original question, which is far different from this one was what you asked, not the "
but but but but what I really meant was" question above
. Perhaps if your initial question hadn't been so poorly written so that it "meant what you didn't mean" then the answer might have been different...but...no, actually it wouldn't have. You lacked specificity and clarity. Backpedaling now doesn't change what you asked.
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.
How is it
bravado to never assume? I mean honestly, now you're just typing gibberish. Really, it's gibberish. The "hit rate probability" is based on what? Answer THAT question, oh wait...
it was based on an assumption that has to be assumed in order to make another assumption upon which to base another assumption...so that one can finally assume something else....Ugh. It makes my eyeballs bleed.
I don't assume. A fight will take as few or as many rounds as it will take to end it. A fight is a fluid and dynamic event. I have seen a subject absorb 15 rounds of 45 and not "go down" until he was taken out by a cruiser rolling in at 40 miles an hour. I have seen a chud take a peripheral hit with a 380 and literally, lay down and die. The thought of using a chart, or a graph which is made up of assumptions to choose what gun, or at least what capacity your gun should utilize is likewise gibberish. It's the hits that matter, so the gun with which you actually shoot the best, and train with, and put in the blood, sweat, tears, and gobble the range dirt is far better than one you carry because a chart said you should. If Shooter A actually does silly **** like get the hits he needs when he needs them with an 8-round 1911, but can't hit the broad side of a barn with all 18 rounds in a Glock 17...should he not carry the 1911 in favor of the Glock? No, that would be...stupid, but in essence, that is the message here.
And please stop talking to people like you're the only one who has ever fired a weapon in the line of duty
And once again you missed the mark. I was referring to putting in the time
TRAINING. Did you miss that, or just
assume I meant something else? I don't equivocate or lack specificity, and when I venture an opinion it's from experience. I never mentioned how many times I fired my weapon in the line of duty. I was specifically referring to all the hard work and training that went into making me CONFIDENT that when I was in a critical incident that the
mechanics of shooting would be the least important thing on my mind. The mechanics of shooting was handled. Then it only left the mental, which can also be handled with hard work and training. So, cross that off, got it.
No need to worry because you've "trained for this" was the mantra we went by
. Then what's left? Not much other than putting what you have trained for to work.