Thoughts on Multiple Assailants, Hit Rate & Capacity

[JohnKSa]

...round count wins out over round size...

The calculations/results don't take caliber (round size) into account at all. They only assess the probability of making a certain number of hits, given a certain number of available shots and assuming a particular hit rate probability.

What I'm saying is that nothing in the results should be construed as comparing round count to round size or making any statement at all about terminal effect.

...actually hitting the BG (or two) is very challenging.

That's really the primary point of the calculations. With LEO gunfight hit rates and a limited number of rounds, it's very challenging to get a decent number of hits.

And, of course, it is true that hitting the target is a pre-requisite of actually incapacitating an attacker, and that the more rounds you have available (assuming you have the time to shoot them all) the better your chances are of making hits.

Does this have an implied set of time and distance factors?

None whatsoever. The only indirect assumption about time is that the defender gets a chance to use all his/her available rounds. There's no assumption about distance and it's possible that at very close ranges, the hit rate probability might increase. Of course, it all gets very complicated when you start trying to factor that kind of thing in because one could assume that the opponent's hit rate could go up too and that could have a bearing on the defender's hit rate (if he gets hit) and on whether or not he gets a chance to use all the available rounds.

It's a pretty basic result. It's just about the probability of achieving either 2 or 4 hits given the very simple assumptions. Fixed hit-rate probability, fixed # of shots available.

...ammo capacity to trump all the other factors that go into choosing the right carry gun.

The calculations don't even assess most of the factors that go into choosing a carry gun. The calculation results are very narrowly focused on one specific aspect of gunfights and are only valid if one keeps the assumptions involved in mind.

Frankly, what I get out of the numbers isn't as much about capacity as it is about the reality of gunfights.

I don't plan to change what I carry or how much ammo I carry, what has changed are my thoughts about the effectiveness of the weapon system that is my carry gun and I.

I hadn't realized how poor the chances were of actually being able to score hits on one or two opponents in a gunfight given a limited # of shots and a realistic probability of making a hit with each shot.

The realization, will, I hope, help me to make wise decisions in the event that I ever end up having to use my CCW in self-defense.

I think the biggest lesson is that the numbers show when a person, armed with a typical carry pistol, faces more than one determined attacker the biggest factor in whether the defender will "win" is whether or not one or more of the attackers gives up when the shooting starts. Something to think about.

 

[Skribs]

The calculations/results don't take caliber (round size) into account at all. They only assess the probability of making a certain number of hits, given a certain number of available shots and assuming a particular hit rate probability.

What I'm saying is that nothing in the results should be construed as comparing round count to round size or making any statement at all about terminal effect.

Maybe not, but the point is if you're expecting the terminal ballistics of the .45 and 9 to be somewhat similar, this shows how until you get to duty pistols, the capacity of the 9 will offer a lot better chance of hitting both targets twice.

The calculations don't even assess most of the factors that go into choosing a carry gun. The calculation results are very narrowly focused on one specific aspect of gunfights and are only valid if one keeps the assumptions involved in mind.

No, but it does assess a big part - how much capacity can affect the likelihood of stopping a determined attacker or a couple determined attackers. That plays into a lot of other choices, such as:
Revolver or Semi
Single Stack or Double
Caliber
Duty size or Compact
etc.

I mean, grip, concealability, etc. all play into as well, but so does round count.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: No, but it [the set of calculations, with the given assumptions] does assess a big part - how much capacity can affect the likelihood of stopping a determined attacker or a couple determined attackers. That plays into a lot of other choices, such as:

Revolver or Semi
Single Stack or Double
Caliber
Duty size or Compact​

etc.

The charts certainly do better illuminate the factors that would influence some of those choices.

However, they do not provide any real answers regarding what to carry.

I dropped into a store yesterday to look, for the first time really, at some of the hi cap 9s on the market today. Three of the best known, widely used by police departments and/or military units, were just too large for concealed carry. The ergonomics--trigger pull, safety or decocker location or shape, mag release--of several of them ruled them out for me. Some other characteristics have kept me from looking at others.

Compared to all of what I looked at yesterday, the height, thickness, length, trigger pull, and safety features of my single column .45 (officer's frame, approximately Commander length) combine to outweigh the capacity difference for me.

It does hold a lot more than five rounds.

And I'm still looking. Not only in the store, but at home. My M&P 9c met most of my needs four years ago, except that my hand hurts after a range session.

As previously mentioned, the J-Frame still has some advantages, such as the ability to be drawn quickly or even fired from a jacket pocket if necessary; it's just that I now think it prudent to add to it. New York reload, anyone?

 

[jad0110]

Frankly, what I get out of the numbers isn't as much about capacity as it is about the reality of gunfights.

I don't plan to change what I carry or how much ammo I carry, what has changed are my thoughts about the effectiveness of the weapon system that is my carry gun and I.

I think the biggest lesson is that the numbers show when a person, armed with a typical carry pistol, faces more than one determined attacker the biggest factor in whether the defender will "win" is whether or not one or more of the attackers gives up when the shooting starts. Something to think about.

Agreed. All things being equal, a gun that holds more rounds has an advantage. But all things are rarely equal. In the end, most days I carry a S&W K or N Frame because I can draw and fire them (point shooting or using sights) more effectively then any other platform.

From my own observations, and this is all just common sense, those that prevail in the fight for their life most frequently are the ones who were able to maintain their cool and keep their whits about them. Certainly easier said then done, but essential nonetheless. A person who maintains their focus armed with a 6 shooter will likely prevail over a guy with a hicap wonder9 shooting scared, and vice versa.

From my perspective, I live in a small town, but there are enough folks about that a 30% hit rate is simply unacceptable. I am fully aware that misses can result in tragedy, given my surroundings. I have to do better than average. Of course, avoiding such a situation in the first place is paramount. Maybe John's stats in the end highlight more than anything else the importance of always being aware of your surroundings, and if something doesn't seem right, trust your instincts and get out.

As for dealing with multiple attackers, IMO you best bet will be to very rapidly figure out who the pack leader is (again, easier said then done), and plug that guy. Very likely, this will cause the other to scatter. Maybe not though. In a situation like that, facing multiple armed, determined attackers (outnumbered 3 or more to 1), a fellow THR member summed it up best about 5 years ago stating something to the effect that a hicap auto won't save you either, but it will at least allow you to take more of them with you.

 

[Centurian22]

Awesome post and data presentation! I was a science major in college and a bit of a math geek at heart so this just made my day! Lots to think about, glad I plan to carry a full size xd9 with 16+1 capacity and get alot of training in with it at the range.

 

[Prosser]

When I was mugged, and hit over the head with a PPK/S it was by three very big guys, in a bathroom, at point blank range.

I play this over and over in my head. A PM9, at that range, would have been better then they had. I would NOT have missed at that range.

Given a choice, a Detonics Combat master with 7 rounds would have sufficed.
The gun hits VERY hard at PBR, and, I would have been able to put 3 shots on target, read chest/heart on 3 guys. The caliber, and effectiveness of the round would have been critical to the situation, considering the range, and the followup shots. It would all have been over in 5 seconds.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Prosser: The gun hits VERY hard at PBR, and, I would have been able to...

I really wound't put any reliance at all on how "hard" a handgun "hits".

What matters is what it hits and destroys. That will be a function of penetration, wound channel, placement and the poset entry wound path, and how many hits you achieve.

 

[Hangingrock]

When subjects like this come up I usually think of excerpts from The Modern Technique of The Pistol by Morrison Gunsite Press ISBN0-9611342-3-6 Copy Right 1991. Especially the chapters: The Combat Mind Set by Jeff Cooper, The Colossal Cartridge Controversy, and The Principle of Pairs and Firing Modes.

 

[Skribs]

Hangingrock, can you provide some of those excerpts or at least paraphrase them? Having not read the books, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

 

[Prosser]

If I'm ever in the mugged situation again it looks highly likely to be under 7 feet, in dim light.
At that range my accuracy is going to be better then 30%.
At that range I'm unlikely to get off more then 6 shots, unless my initial shots
are both well placed and create enough disruption to incapacitate the primary attacker.
The state of California has limited my legal magazine capacity to 10 rounds.
At some point I would need to balance the fatness of a Glock 30 or 29 against the 10 rounds. In the past I've gone with a 1911 form since it's more to my liking, and easier to conceal. Capacity 7 in Detonics, 8 in full sized kimber.

I am not convinced the extra rounds are worth the horrible Glock trigger.

I also have guns easier to carry, and lighter. I use these while taking out the trash, etc.

.357 snub nose and PM9.

 

[X-Rap]

At under 7' you won't even notice that horrible Glock trigger. In a state that hamstrings you with the 10rd mags I'd pick the gun that came closest to 10 in the mag as offered from the factory.

 

[JohnKSa]

If I'm ever in the mugged situation again it looks highly likely to be under 7 feet, in dim light.
At that range my accuracy is going to be better then 30%.

IIRC, the range and lighting conditions you note are the "average range" and "average conditions" for a typical LE gunfight. 30% is the typical hit rate for LEOs under those conditions.

But let's assume that you shoot significantly better than that.

With 2 assailants, 6 shots, and a hit rate of 60%--twice as good as the LEO average--your chances of getting more than one hit on each opponent are about 55%. That's only 5% better than a coin flip.

With all the same variables but increasing the number of shots available by just ONE (and assuming you can get all 7 rounds off) your chances of getting multiple hits on each assailant go up to a little over 70% chance of success.

 

[Prosser]

From the other facts posted:
"< 7 FEET 68 (48.9%) 71 (51.1%) 139 (47%) 52 (82.5%)"
At 7 feet or less, the chances of hits go up to 50%.
at 7 to 15 feet it drops to the 30% you suggest.

In my state, if the guy is 5 yards away he better be shooting at me if I'm shooting.

I do think it's more likely to be double teamed in my area, my size,220, then a single attacker.

I can't help but think that the 30% average hit ratio for LEO's is due to Glock triggers. My brief, unpleasant experience with a Glock 30 at 11 yards supports that.

A lifetime of 1911 use is not going by the wayside for 2-3 extra rounds, when I'm already at 7 and 8. Faster reloads would seem to be in order if you have a 50% hit rate, and the BG's continue to come.

I have shot 1911's well from the first time I picked one up. Only a fool would ignore something that has worked for 40 years, for a boogie man of a couple extra rounds.

Ideally we would have 9 round magazines that worked for 1911's. Don't see why you couldn't do that with minimal extension on a standard magazine.

I also like actually being able to put the full number of rounds into the magazines, something Glock 30 magazines aren't exactly quick or easy to do with.

If CCW's ever become available in our county, legally, or I move, I would certainly consider carrying two 1911's.

 

[Prosser]

DTap Moderator please delete

 

[M1key]

Yeah those terrible Glock triggers... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taxzwdnCfhc


I am not comfortable with carrying less than 15 rounds in 9mm or 10 rounds in larger calibers.

M

 

[Rexster]

I am not really into math, and the charts in the original post do not show up on this gadget, anyway, but I thought I would mention something I have posted here on THR before, that as a street LEO, I have, indeed, noticed an upward trend in multiple armed suspects in street robberies in my patrol area, which has become quite gentrified, and is no longer a "bad" part of town. (I have generally tried to keep a certain level of anonymity and deniability in my forum posts, due to rules about discussing certain subjects on social media, but I may as well, in the December of my police career, "out" myself and say it is
Houston, Texas.)

There has also been a personally-perceived rise in armed home invasions, with the victims no longer predominately drug dealers. A recent one, where I photographed the scene and injuries, seemed to involve the bad guys hitting a wrong address, based on mistaken identity of who lived at the address.
----------------------
Quoting Kleanbore: "As previously mentioned, the J-Frame still has some advantages, such as the ability to be drawn quickly or even fired from a jacket pocket if necessary; it's just that I now think it prudent to add to it. New York reload, anyone?"

That is what I often do, but with the slightly bigger SP101 being the general foundation, rather than a smaller J-snub. (I do have a Model 642-based S&W PC snubby, but prefer a bit more heft, to mitigate recoil, and in case a bad guy bumps his head on my gun.) When I venture beyond the property line, I usually have an SP101, plus, at minimum, another SP101, if not an S&W Model 19, GP100, or 1911. I may finally add a G26 to the equation, soon.

 

[YankeeFlyr]

You're over-thinking this.

 

[Prosser]

I like the 34 and 35 and have shot the .40 version, in a full race gun:




Gun I shot had around a 3 pound trigger, with a short reset. FAR different from your average Glock 29 or 30, usually used for CCW.

I do wonder how you would suggest carrying a 34 as a CCW?
Saying the 34 is a CCW gun, and posting that video is like saying a 3500 dollar target race gun is good for CCW. However, since you can carry a cocked and locked 1911, with a 2-3 pound trigger, and carry it safely, my posting something like the world's fastest 1911 shooter wouldn't be wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQhXkvAVV78&feature=related

If you go with the best gun is the one someone can shoot the fastest, I guess we need a .45 Colt SA done by Bob Munden, and a S&W Jerry model:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsU5AMxvlKg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

 

[B!ngo]

Bingo, mini semi-autos are also harder to shoot accurately because they trade fit-in-hand for hide-in-underwear.

Good point. So you're saying that not only do they carry a limited number of rounds that, when compared with your likely hit rate, may be too few AND they likely induce a lower hit rate because they are harder to grip and aim.
If so, the proverbial double whammy. Makes sense to me.
Of course, like many people note about the .22LR for self-defense, better than carrying nothing. But it may beg the question of, after calculating the probabilities, which is more effective? A micro 9mm or less semi? Or a manageable .22LR
B

 

[JohnKSa]

From the other facts posted:
"< 7 FEET 68 (48.9%) 71 (51.1%) 139 (47%) 52 (82.5%)"
At 7 feet or less, the chances of hits go up to 50%.
at 7 to 15 feet it drops to the 30% you suggest.

Where did you get these numbers?

 

[Prosser]

Link from post #13:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8121799&postcount=1

rwilson37643
Member


Join Date: May 27, 2011
Location: Elizabethton TN
Posts: 62

civilian shooting stats
I acquired some interesting information from a friend who works for a states Attorney General’s office. They have tracked shots fired by CCW holders in the state in self defense, criminal acts, and negligence. Of course this data only includes those incidents reported to police, but it is still very interesting data. In the time this state has been issuing permits in the current manner permit holders have only fired 322 shots. Only 16 of these have been criminal in nature, some of these were in my opinion, negligence, but did result in criminal charges or were acts of suicide. 8 shots have been negligent without criminal charges, most of these occurred on a gun range or in the home. The remaining 296 shots were fired in self defense. The following table shows the range and hit or miss of these 296 shots:
Range # of hits # of Misses Total # of shootings
< 7 FEET 68 (48.9%) 71 (51.1%) 139 (47%) 52 (82.5%)
7 – 15 FEET 31 (32%) 66 (68%) 97 (32.8%) 43 (68.25%)
15 – 30 FEET 9 (24.3%) 28 (75.7%) 37 (12.5%) 12 (19%)
30 – 75 FEET 4 (20%) 16 (80%) 20 (6.76%) 6 (9.5%)
> 75 FEET 1 (33%) 2 (66%) 3 (1%) 1 (1.6%)
TOTAL 113 (38.2%) 183 (61.8%) 296
Some shootings represented in more than 1 range

• Total # of self defense shootings – 63
• Average shots fired by CCW holder – 4.7
• # of shootings with only one bad guy – 16 (25.4%)
• # of shootings with 2 bad guys – 34 (54%)
• # of shootings with 3 bad guys – 12 (19%)
• # of shootings with 4 or more bad guys – 1 (1.6%)
• # in which the bad guy was moving while being shot at – 63 (100%)
• # in which the CCW holder reported at least some movement while firing – 45 (88.9%)
• # of SD shootings occurring at the CCW holders home – 9 (14.3%)
• # of SD shootings occurring at the CCW holders place of employment – 12 (19%)
• # remaining – 42 (66.7%)
• # occurring indoors – 4 (6.4%)
• # occurring outdoors – 59 (93.6%)
• # occurring in full light – 14 (22.2%)
• # occurring in full darkness – 0
• # occurring in dim light – 49 (77.78%)
• Statisticly this states CCW holders have a .017% chance of being involved in a shooting
• # of CCW holders shot, stabbed, or otherwise in need of serious medical attention – 18 (28.5%)
• # of CCW holders killed – 2 (3.17%)
Sorry about the ambiguity and not telling which state. This data has not been made public, and my friend is afraid of repercussions if it is traced back to him. and the table didn't paste so well oops

 

[JohnKSa]

Thanks, I missed that link.

From the other facts posted:
"< 7 FEET 68 (48.9%) 71 (51.1%) 139 (47%) 52 (82.5%)"
At 7 feet or less, the chances of hits go up to 50%.
at 7 to 15 feet it drops to the 30% you suggest.

The plots in the OP allow a person to run the numbers for any hit rate probabilty from 10% to 90%.

Ok, so inside 7 feet (a little over 2 yards) we can raise the hit rate probability to 50%. That's actually worse than the 60% I assumed for the sake of argument in my earlier post.

So with a 50% hit rate with 6 shots and two assailants, each requiring at least 2 hits, the probability of success is about 35%.

Same scenario but with 7 shots and the probability of success is about 50%. A coin flip.

Go up to 8 shots and the probability of success is over 60%.

Of course, at 7 feet or less your opponent's hit rate will probably go up too... The probabilities I've calculated don't take that into account. From a practical standpoint, being extremely close to your opponent may hurt your chances more than it helps them by upping your hit rate.

A lifetime of 1911 use is not going by the wayside for 2-3 extra rounds, when I'm already at 7 and 8.

I'm not trying to get anyone to change anything.

It's information. There are any number of ways a person could assimilate it and put it to practical use. Or, it can simply be ignored.

The point is that the information allows a person to make a decision (to change, not to change, how much to change, what to change) based on something other than blind speculation. That's all.

Here's another source for the plots, for those who are having trouble viewing them.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5131003&postcount=10

 

[Trent]

Wow. The two data tables combined (OP and the CCW stats) are REALLY eye opening.

Conclusions:

A) You're MOST likely to be attacked by multiple assailants (74.6%)
B) You're MOST likely to be attacked outdoors (93.6%)
C) You're MOST likely to be attacked in dim light (77.78%)
D) Moving target (100%)

The low hit rates could be inferred to be from the shock of being in a confrontation (adrenaline) and low light. Most people DO NOT practice shooting in low light - safety reasons, etc. And damn few people practice at shooting A MOVING TARGET. And it's a safe bet that no one practices while under threat of death, so very few people actually know how they will react when presented with that particular circumstance. We have to assume since these people sent rounds downrange that "Fight" kicked in instead of "Flight".

This one is the most telling.

E) 28.5% of victims were seriously injured.

That's > 1/4 chance you're going to get hurt, and badly.

F) Most shootings occur < 15 feet.

Consider this:

Average sprinting speed of a non-world-class-athlete human is around 14MPH (20.5 fps.) Max is somewhere in the neighborhood of 23MPH.

That means in the predominantly close range (<15 feet) encounter distance, you have LESS THAN ONE SECOND to put a round on target before the bad guys close the distance. Emphasis added to "guys" because I wanted to illustrate that MORE than one attacker is the predominant case (@75%).

*I* have practiced an awful lot over my lifetime and *I* would not be able to draw and take down multiple assailants in under one second.

Those stats are very frightening, and I don't scare easily. What these stats mean is two guys with baseball bats, knives, or tire-irons have a BETTER chance at disabling/killing me than I have of doing the reverse, with a firearm, in the time window allotted for closing distance.

Lessons learned:

Situational awareness is key to keeping encounter distances far enough away to be able to react.

Training methods should reflect on the real world - multiple targets at varying distances and locations - front and back, side to side, etc. Some training should be done against moving targets (complicated to set up for the average Joe). Practice shooting in a stationary position in a stationary lane against a stationary target is fine for familiarizing yourself with a weapon, but to properly prepare for a real world scenario, it is insufficient training.

Combined with the OP's statistics (which it turns out are close enough to real world data to call "very good" data) - there is also a strong indication that you WILL need more than 6 shots to end a confrontation against determined assailants. (In fact, I don't believe I'd feel entirely comfortable unless I had DOUBLE that number, 12+).

There's plenty of data out there (along with real-world common sense) which indicates shot placement is much more important than diameter of bullet - with the number of good hits to center of mass being the deciding factor in increasing your chances significantly of incapacitation. (Each additional shot gives 100% more chance of inflicting a nervous system or major blood vessel hit, whereas a larger caliber may give you only 10-12% more chance - obviously depending on calibers being compared; 40vs.45, 9mm vs. 45, etc.)

Yeah. This has been a real eye opener!!

 

[Prosser]

The good news is bad guys generally have to close distance, and they usually do that by talking, and moving slower then full sprint speed.

Given the statistics, there are other factors in play here. I'm not even sure I WANT low flash powder in my SD rounds. At the range we are talking about having success flash and blast become assets. At such ranges you are going to have a hard time convincing me some of the larger rounds don't have an advantage, and if accuracy is so poor at PB range, then shot placement isn't going to be wonderful either.

It is a pretty grim scenario.

As for getting the adequate number of rounds on target:

Watch the Todd Jerett video I posted to. His record for a 3 man, 4 shots on each target is about 3.4 seconds, with a reload, under ideal conditions.
Funny part is if he did that at our range they would ban him for rapid fire violation.:banghead:


I would love to carry more then 10 rounds. If I do that, I'm breaking another law, not to mention CCW in my area is illegal, unless you are LEO, retired, or work for the DA or Sheriff.

Ideally I would carry a Mac 10 with a 32 round clip, a couple backup clips, in .45 ACP. It appears that would be effective given the 'average' situation described by the above statistics. At that range, you could put 7000 grains on target, in less then 2 seconds. Probably 20 years in weapons charges, both federal and state to do that here.

Situational awareness is the answer, but, in this world of cell phones, heads down, portable music players and head phones we are starting to look more and more like sheep to determined wolves.

Thank you for posting the stats. What they do do is make me rethink what I can change, my home defense stuff. New York reloads, and keep the guns handy.

 

[Skribs]

Prosser, very good breakdown. What this tells me is that I'm very likely to need to defend against 2-3 attackers. 1 is less likely, but still statistically significant (and, if I'm prepared for 2-3, I'm prepared for 1) and 4+ is an outlier.

It also shows that accuracy inside 7 feet is under 50%, 7-15 feet is around the 30% mark we've been discussing here, and 15-30 feet is less. I'm gonna round it to 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4 for my assumptions just to make it easier.

ETA: The number of assailants also makes a good argument for why to carry a gun in the first place. if 55% of the time you're going to be attacked, it's by 2 attackers, and another 20% it's 3 attackers, then martial arts skills are not likely to cut it - especially if you're using a more 1-on-1 style involving submission holds.