Which would you rather carry?

[fastbolt]

Pop quiz: What is the average hit rate of lawful carriers and LEO's when using handguns defensively or in OIS?

Bonus question: How many rounds from a handgun firing a service cartridge might it take to stop one attacker?

Trying to determine a probable answer that's applicable on an individual basis, using a broad average statistic, may not provide the specificity and applicability desired.

I can think of a number of local area shootings of which I've learned, and actually knew the cops in some of them, which might make someone think that a 100% shot/hit ratio wasn't an unrealistic occurrence ... until a shooting comes along and some cop misses several shots. That has an effect when it comes to calculating statistics.

I usually don't use broadly based statistics about hit/miss "ratios" when making a determination regarding the ammunition capacity of the handgun I may choose to use.

I have, however, sometimes chosen a 10+1 pistol over a 6+1 pistol, but because I felt it might give me an opportunity to make 11 accurate hits without reloading versus only making 7 accurate hits.

In other words, while I may taken into consideration the total capacity available between having to load, I don't consider it from the perspective of "allowing" for some statistical number of misses.

Sometimes I just may prefer being able to make more hits before having to load again.

Dies that mean all shots fired in actual conditions will be guaranteed to hit their intended threat target? Of course not. No guarantees or promises in real life.

I just don't plan my training and drills around anticipating a certain percentage of misses.

All of that said, the difference between a pistol with 6, 8, 10, 15 or 17-rd magazines may be an equipment choice predicated upon the owner/user ability to carry a "comfortable" round count (for whatever reason is deemed practical), or "comfort" with some particular caliber ... or it might just be what someone happens to be using, or has been required to use.

In the case of the OP's actual question ...

Sometimes I've opted for carrying my 6+1 CS45 over my 7+1 CS9 or 8+1 3913 (because I wanted to carry a .45 ACP) ... and sometimes I've chosen the 9's with 1 or 2 more rounds (but a bit lighter and thinner on the hip).

Either/Or. Both. Sure.

Unless I decide to go with total comfort (especially riding my motorcycle), and simply slip one of my 5-shot J-frames into a leather jacket or vest pocket. I use pocket holsters even though my main riding jacket and a couple of my leather vests have been modified to have leather "holster pockets".

 

[Delford]

Kahr PM45. Concealable, controllable, accurate. 5+1+5.

 

[Warp]

Trying to determine a probable answer that's applicable on an individual basis, using a broad average statistic, may not provide the specificity and applicability desired.

I can think of a number of local area shootings of which I've learned, and actually knew the cops in some of them, which might make someone think that a 100% shot/hit ratio wasn't an unrealistic occurrence ... until a shooting comes along and some cop misses several shots. That has an effect when it comes to calculating statistics.

I usually don't use broadly based statistics about hit/miss "ratios" when making a determination regarding the ammunition capacity of the handgun I may choose to use.

I have, however, sometimes chosen a 10+1 pistol over a 6+1 pistol, but because I felt it might give me an opportunity to make 11 accurate hits without reloading versus only making 7 accurate hits.

In other words, while I may taken into consideration the total capacity available between having to load, I don't consider it from the perspective of "allowing" for some statistical number of misses.

Sometimes I just may prefer being able to make more hits before having to load again.

Dies that mean all shots fired in actual conditions will be guaranteed to hit their intended threat target? Of course not. No guarantees or promises in real life.

I just don't plan my training and drills around anticipating a certain percentage of misses.

All of that said, the difference between a pistol with 6, 8, 10, 15 or 17-rd magazines may be an equipment choice predicated upon the owner/user ability to carry a "comfortable" round count (for whatever reason is deemed practical), or "comfort" with some particular caliber ... or it might just be what someone happens to be using, or has been required to use.

In the case of the OP's actual question ...

Sometimes I've opted for carrying my 6+1 CS45 over my 7+1 CS9 or 8+1 3913 (because I wanted to carry a .45 ACP) ... and sometimes I've chosen the 9's with 1 or 2 more rounds (but a bit lighter and thinner on the hip).

Either/Or. Both. Sure.

Unless I decide to go with total comfort (especially riding my motorcycle), and simply slip one of my 5-shot J-frames into a leather jacket or vest pocket. I use pocket holsters even though my main riding jacket and a couple of my leather vests have been modified to have leather "holster pockets".

In the real world people tend not to hit 100% of the time, and reasonable people don't plan on a 100% hit rate.

Any response to the bonus question? (inb4 that 100% hit rate will be all headshots)

 

[fastbolt]

Do you think there's some sort of definitive, consistent "answer" to your "bonus question"?

Are you including psychological causation, or just physiological?

BTW, reasonable people don't "plan" on achieving a consistent 100% shot/hit rate in the real world, but that doesn't mean they don't train with the goal of developing the necessary skills, abilities and tactics to help put them within reach of being able to experience it, if ever needed.

If someone finds comfort in carrying a higher capacity weapon because they expect to miss X% of the time they shoot, how does that reinforce their confidence in their developing skillset, let alone their mindset?

In a recent training class one of the other instructors mentioned a legal update tidbit he'd learned during a LE instructor update. He said that according to some statistics, the "average" civil payout for a missed round which hit and wounded or killed an unintended person was close to $1.2 million dollars. How many rounds do you want to miss their intended threat target at that rate?

Perhaps training to make accurate hits is probably a better approach than "allowing" a fudge factor for misses built into training?

Just some thoughts. No definitive answers.

Your bonus question is unanswerable except in the abstract and hypothetical ... and after the fact of any particular incident.

 

[Warp]

I didn't catch how you turned recognizing the benefit of greater capacity into training to miss, or what training you do that guarantees you will hit 100% of the time in a life for death defensive firearm use. Could you type that out in a shorter, more succinct, right to the point post?

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

The more my handgun operates like a machine gun and the less I have to reload it, the more I like it. (I paraphrase...)

 

[mavracer]

Pop quiz: What is the average hit rate of lawful carriers and LEO's when using handguns defensively or in OIS?

OIS used to be in the 30-35% range but since the switch to hi cap 9mms in the 80s it dropped to around 20%, I've seen stats for civilians at 65-70% they also have a much lower rate for collateral damage to bystanders.

Bonus question: How many rounds from a handgun firing a service cartridge might it take to stop one attacker?

It might not take any so ????????

 

[Warp]

OIS used to be in the 30-35% range but since the switch to hi cap 9mms in the 80s it dropped to around 20%, I've seen stats for civilians at 65-70% they also have a much lower rate for collateral damage to bystanders.

Private citizens don't really run any better rates that I have seen. They are less likely to have 'collateral damage' because they are not seeking out bad guys or coming to the aid of others, they are firing when proverbially (or literally) cornered and alone...

If private citizens do have a better hit rate it is because of the differences in their typical scenarios, of course.

It might not take any so ????????

So...carry an unloaded gun?

I find the lack of answers to this question quite telling.

 

[mavracer]

private citizens don't really run any better rates that I have seen.

That's your focus, you haven't seen it so it doesn't exist, how about addressing the 40% drop in hits when LEO went to double stack 9mm? Oh wait that doesn't support your position got it.

I find the lack of answers to this question quite telling.

I gave you an answer and a correct one at that. It might take zero and the reality is you might not get the job done.

 

[studenygreg]

I guess I will have to start carrying a 249 now. I wonder if they make a takedown model.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Warp]

That's your focus, you haven't seen it so it doesn't exist

I look at everything available/presented, and I haven't seen anything that says private citizens have significantly different hit rates than LEO's, have you and can you share? And, again, LEO's vs private citizens tend to find themselves in different scenarios where the shots made by the LEO's are probably going to be more difficult and have more bystanders present.

how about addressing the 40% drop in hits when LEO went to double stack 9mm? Oh wait that doesn't support your position got it.

Why are you talking about trends over decades in law enforcement for concealed carrying private citizens?

BTW even if you take the extremes, 20% hit rate from a 15+ round semi is more hits than 40% hit rate from a 6 shot revolver. Plus I think it is a fallacy to say that having more rounds automatically and necessarily means you are going to miss more. I also think only people who live outside of reality prepare based on the assumption that should they need to defend their life with their carry pistol, they will have a 100% hit rate.

I gave you an answer and a correct one at that. It might take zero and the reality is you might not get the job done.

True, it might take zero. That is how few it might take. How "many" might it take? It might take a lot, and if you only have 5 or 6 in the gun, it very well might take more than you have in the gun...and that's for just a single attacker.

 

[fastbolt]

I didn't catch how you turned recognizing the benefit of greater capacity into training to miss, or what training you do that guarantees you will hit 100% of the time in a life for death defensive firearm use. Could you type that out in a shorter, more succinct, right to the point post?

I didn't say that greater capacity is training to miss. I said that people who emphasize higher capacity only because of some perceived "inevitability" of missing a certain percentage of their shots may be doing themselves a disfavor if that's their only reason.

Kind of the same way I strongly disagree with some folks who still seem to believe (and profess) that it's "okay" to accept that the first shot they may fire is going to miss, or is some sort of "throwaway" shot under stress. That first shot may be the only shot they're able to fire, or the shot that will most quickly bring about the desired result. Why on Earth would anyone still promote the idea of a "throwaway" first shot in a shooting incident? But you can still find someone using that as an excuse for a rushed, missed inaccurate first shot (I only mention it because I was told of this occurring in another class recently).

Training for success under duress and stress isn't a single, easily applied fixed regimen. It's sometimes been referred to as training until you achieve a level of consistent unconscious competence. Not everyone may be interested in reaching nor maintaining that level, and instead may find themselves satisfied with striving to reach whatever level of "average" competence is considered acceptable to them (or may be applied to them, if they're LE/Mil, or have to demonstrate proficiency for CCW).

Look at it this way, perhaps ...

How many people would be satisfied with making wild, uncontrolled and potentially inaccurate flailing of their hands/fists and arms when using self defense skills, versus being skilled enough to have a much better chance of making deliberate, accurate strikes during a physical confrontation, albeit fewer of them? Having the stamina to repeatedly flail around, attempting ineffective blows which miss more than they hit their intended target, may not have the desired effect and success of making fewer intentional blows, done in a more accurate manner.

I remember the early "spray & pray" efforts displayed by some folks who thought that having all those rounds in high-cap magazines mostly meant they could throw out faster, less accurate shots and still hope for a desired result. Some of them were people who had formerly carried 6-shot service revolvers.

In more recent years, however, having listened to a number of LE folks who have been involved in shooting incidents, on & off-duty, it's increasingly been the ability to make aimed shots that's effectively stopped the attackers that's been prominently mentioned, rather than the specific caliber or the capacity of their handguns.

Personally, I recognize the benefit of being able to make more aimed shots before having to reload, but it's not the sole criteria I use when selecting a handgun carried for dedicated defensive roles.

That's why I answered both/either to the OP's question regarding a 6+1 .45 or a 7+1 9mm. I own and have selected both, and while another 1 or 2 rounds of capacity may be preferable between having to load, it's not consistently something which worries me regarding "how many" shots may be required in order to cause a physical a cessation to an attacker's volitional violent actions.

Nor can I predict whether a psychological cessation of an attacker's actions will occur, or whether more than 1 or 2 violent, armed attackers may be encountered.

These are just personal opinions I've formed over the years of having worked in LE and having served as a firearms trainer. They're also coming from someone who isn't at all averse to carrying a 5-shot snub revolver for retirement CCW, or the aforementioned .45/9 subcompacts - (or a 6-shot .380, or some other "low cap" 9, .40/.45 pistols) - depending on the daily threat assessment related to my activities.

Naturally, you're certainly free to have other preferences.

 

[JR24]

All else being equal? I'd take the .45 ACP.

This, of course, is assuming I shoot said small gun well. I tend to prefer .45 in small guns as it is.

That said, if it ain't a 1911 I'd prefer more than 10 rounds, regardless of caliber.

 

[tbass23]

Whichever one was lighter and thinner would be my pick so probably the 9mm. That being said, I love 45ACP. If I could chose only 1 pistol it would be a 45 because I enjoy shooting it and shoot it well. But in this scenario, if both options were available to lug around all day I'd go with comfort since performance is almost identical.

 

[mavracer]

Why are you talking about trends over decades in law enforcement for concealed carrying private citizens?

Because you brought it up, look I get it you don't want to really look at anything in depth just cherry pick the stuff from here an there that supports your decision.

 

[200Apples]

.
Dangit, mav... just when there was a nice, quiet lull in the festivities... you go and stir the Warp's nest... .

I wanted to post this earlier but felt there was never a good point in the thread in which to insert it. It is one of the first things I read from Cooper that wasn't from one of his instructional texts. It is a sobering thought but it also served to reinforce my view that only hits count, regardless of what my particular firearm is chambered in.

I have in hand a pretty fascinating document from New York entitled "A Firearms Discharge Assault Report, 1991." It is so thick that tabulation is impractical but it is certainly interesting to note that the law enforcement establishment seems to have forgotten about the use of sights, providing they ever knew about the use of sights. Again and again we have reports of shootings at ranges of 5 feet and under in which many shots were exchanged with no hits.

I suppose it must be accepted that the majority of people who opt for a job in law enforcement are not interested in marksmanship and only people who are interested in marksmanship can be counted on to hit what they shoot at. This is hard for me to accept. I can sympathize with Simon Bolivar, when on his death bed, he sighed, "I have plowed the sea."

- From Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, June 1993

 

[Warp]

Because you brought it up

I did not bring up decades long trends in law enforcement, don't lie

 

[mavracer]

I did not bring up decades long trends in law enforcement, don't lie

You brought up hit rates of LEO and of course like I said "you don't want to really look at anything in depth just cherry pick the stuff from here an there that supports your decision."

 

[Warp]

You brought up hit rates of LEO and of course like I said "you don't want to really look at anything in depth just cherry pick the stuff from here an there that supports your decision."

I'll look as in depth as you could possibly want regarding the current hit rates of LEO's...as they stand now...compared to the current hit rates of private citizens/carriers. That's the topic, that's what I brought up.

I don't know how you got from apples statement about 2 extra rounds being good if you plan to miss a lot, to changing hit % of LE over decades, though.

 

[Zendude]

If the difference is only 2 rounds, I'll take the 45.

 

[danez71]

I'll look as in depth as you could possibly want regarding the current hit rates of LEO's...as they stand now...compared to the current hit rates of private citizens/carriers. That's the topic, that's what I brought up.

I don't know how you got from apples statement about 2 extra rounds being good if you plan to miss a lot, to changing hit % of LE over decades, though.

Why would you even bring up that topic when earlier you indicate that you don't even think its a good comparison?

Private citizens don't really run any better rates that I have seen. They are less likely to have 'collateral damage' because they are not seeking out bad guys or coming to the aid of others, they are firing when proverbially (or literally) cornered and alone...

If private citizens do have a better hit rate it is because of the differences in their typical scenarios, of course.



So...carry an unloaded gun?

I find the lack of answers to this question quite telling.

You brought up hit rates of LEO and of course like I said "you don't want to really look at anything in depth just cherry pick the stuff from here an there that supports your decision."

And in response to being mischaracterized what was said:

I didn't say that greater capacity is training to miss. I said that people who....<snip>

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this trend.


I said this on May 25th

But whatever, Warp. You just like to argue and selectively quote people in order to do so, time and time again, thread after thread.

 

[mavracer]

I don't know how you got from apples statement about 2 extra rounds being good if you plan to miss a lot

Again I disagree, I believe if you "plan to miss a lot" that you really should think about carrying an unloaded gun.

 

[200Apples]

.
You know, fellas, my "statement" that's being tossed around was made tongue-in-cheek. I even added smilies to the post.

But on the other side of that coin is the mindset it denotes.

Now then: Can't we all just get along?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Bonus question: How many rounds from a handgun firing a service cartridge might it take to stop one attacker?

There's no answer to that question -- first of all, because the number varies widely, and secondly because in INDIVIDUAL CASES, statistics are meaningless.

That leaves us with two choices -- carry a belt-fed M249 (as one poster suggested) or a single shot M198 155mm howitzer. That's the gun a friend of mine said was issued with 3 10-ton trucks; one to pull the gun, one to carry the ammo, and one tio pull the lanyard.

 

[Warp]

Why would you even bring up that topic when earlier you indicate that you don't even think its a good comparison?

I never brought up anything from decades ago, or anything about changing trends over periods of decades. Please stop the straw man.

There's no answer to that question -- first of all, because the number varies widely, and secondly because in INDIVIDUAL CASES, statistics are meaningless.

That leaves us with two choices

False dichotomy.

And we all know better than to claim that having 5 rounds is exactly as useful, in all cases, as having 18 rounds.