PDA

View Full Version : 3-4 rounds average per gunfight. Still true?


FerFAL
March 28, 2008, 11:39 PM
Just happened to read Erick Gelhaus’s post “The pendulm (and scythe) are swinging ... Heed the warning.”

Being sincere here, I clicked on it thinking that it referred to the hard financial times USA is going through, and that it had security advice in that regard. My mistake.
Still, I got to read his warning regarding senseless discussions, so its good to remind people about it before posts evolve into urinating championships.

I’m making this post because I just got off the phone, after talking with a friend of mine.

We talked about the current situation our country is going through, the food shortages and empty shelves, and how long things will hold on until people get desperate.

As an afterthought she mentioned that some robbers attacked her father and his girlfriend (divorced) while they watched over her recently married sister’s home, while she was in her honeymoon.

I always try to learn as much detail as I can from these situations.
As usual, 3 armed men intercepted the couple when they arrived to the sister’s house, when they were getting out of the car.

Then, three more guys showed up, each driving a car!
They tied them up, loaded the cars full of the newly wedded couple’s gifts, everything they had was soon fitted into the cars.
After that, one of the bad guys cut the cable off an appliance, stripped the end of the cable, and threatened to torture them with electric shocks.
There was also some money in the house, about $ 1000, and fortunately they didn’t fulfill the threat.

When I hear about such incidents, which unfortunately happen very often, I’ve noticed that most of the time, at least 2 or 3 criminals are involved, probably 4 of more. I seldom hear of armed criminals working solo, with the exception of rapists.

Understanding this context, I can’t help but to remember how ill fitted the 3-4 round average per self defense shooting is these days.

This supposed average has been around for decades.
Got to wonder, is it still accurate?

Aside from some murders when only one shot is fired into an unlucky person ( I don’t consider those gunfights) when gun fights do occur, much more rounds are fired.
30-40 rounds in a gunfight last week, and not long ago a cop told me about one they had against 5 or 6 bad guys where 50-60 rounds where fired.
When you have an average of 3 criminals armed with 15 round pistols, it’s easy to see how the firepower required can easily exceed the supposed 3 or 4 average.

In a perfect world, internet commandos with nerves of steel are 100% sure that they will land each and ever shot in the heart or head of their attackers.

In a less perfect world, but a more realistic one, people like Jeanne Assam fire 10 shots to stop a single attacker.

So, the question is pretty simple; do you think that it is wise to expect to shoot just 3 or 4 rounds, or should you have a weapon with more capacity just in case that average no longer holds truth, or you just happen to be one of those that don’t trust luck when it comes to falling within favorable odds.
It would be great if we could have a mature discussion here guys. Data from real gunfights would be good too.

FerFAL

Dwight55
March 30, 2008, 01:42 PM
FerFAL, . . . in 1966, . . . in Saigon, . . . a smart aleck gunner handed me an M1 Garand, . . . and one bandolier of ammo (8 ea, 8 round clips) and sent me on my way.

I have been wary ever since of being caught somewhere without enough ammo, . . . so I carry at least one spare magazine for whatever auto I have on me at the time, . . . and as often as not, . . . I carry 2 spare mags.

If I am out of town, . . . I have 3 spare mags, . . . and maybe even a full box of ammo, . . . just in case I get to go shooting somewhere.

No, . . . I don't believe that 2 or 3 or 4 rounds would be enough in a real life confrontation.

May God bless,
Dwight

Lurper
March 30, 2008, 01:56 PM
It depends on what "shootings" you're looking at. If you include LEO shootings, the number of rounds is probably greater than 5. If you include criminal shootings (drive-bys, revenge, etc.) the number is also probably greater. But, if you look at civilian defensive shootings at home and at work that number is probably still true (here in the US anyway). Even in multiple assailant confrontations.

Scattergun Bob
March 30, 2008, 03:38 PM
ferFAL,

the way this stat was first used was to describe each gunfight incident for NYPD. NYPD has gathered gunfight data for their officers since the 1890's had this information has been passed to and fro ever since.

the key to this part of the data is that the event you described would have been broken down into each individual shooting sequence and analyzed separately, this is where the mean average of 3 to 4 shots per engagement came from.

hope this helps,

Good luck and be safe.

Skyguy
March 30, 2008, 03:54 PM
Yes, 3-4 shots per person - per gunfight remains about the average across the board.

Below is a data example from a NYPD, SOP9 police combat analysis report that supports the 3-4 shot claim.

Obviously, it's not representative of all gunfights, but it is a microcosm of big city shootings involving both on and off duty police vs civilians.
Part of your answer lies in this legitimate data. There's plenty more data out there that supports the 3-4 shot average for all types of shootings.

Research it yourself, but if the data/opinion is not legitimately documented.....totally ignore it.

NYPD SOP 9 - ANALYSIS OF POLICE COMBAT
In 1969, the Firearms and Tactics Section of the New York City Police Department instituted a procedure for the in-depth documentation and study of police combat situations. It was designated Department Order SOP 9.
Data gathering began in January 1970, and over 6000 cases were studied during the 1970s. The study results and findings were released in 1981.

FIREARMS DISCHARGE ASSAULT REPORT 1992

GUNFIGHTS STATISTICS:

Total: 76 (27% of shooting incidents)

Total number of MOS involved on duty: 151 Off duty: 11
Total number of shots fired by MOS: 583
Total number of hits by MOS: 96
Hit potential 17%
Shots per incident 7.7
Shots by MOS per incident 3.6
Total number of perpetrators involved 87
Total number of shots fired by perps 257
Total number of hits by perpetrators 17
Hit potential 7%
Average shots by perps per incident 3.0

MEMBERS ACCURACY AT DISTANCES FIRED DURING GUNFIGHTS:

TOTAL SHOTS HITS POTENTIAL


Less than 3 yards 9 79 22 28%
3 - 7 yards 20 141 15 11%
7- 15 yards 19 120 5 4.2%
15- 25 yards 9 44 1 2.3%
Over 25 yards 3 14 1 7.1%
Undetermined 22 185 52 28.1%

IN 5 INCIDENTS M.O.S FIRED FROM 6 DIFFERENT DISTANCES

In 1992, 48% of all gunfights of a known distance occurred at 7 yards or less, compared to 58% in 1991.

perpetrators killed: 6
perpetrators wounded: 27

Doc TH
March 30, 2008, 07:46 PM
Skyguy and Scattergun Bob are correct.
The original NYPD SOP9 dat were collected when the NYPD was for the most part using revolvers. Thgey have been updated since the switch to 9mm semiautos.
Interestingly, the average no. of shots fired to terminate a police-perp encounter by NYPD officers has gone up to 6.9
BUT

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%.
In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%.
And in 2000, when semiauto's were in widespread use, the average hit potential was...
Less than 9%.

So, it would seem that use of higher capacity handguns has increased the number of shots fired per incident, but the probability of hit per shots fired has significantly decreased.

The original NYPD SOP9 finding that shot placement is the single most important factor in ending a gunfight remains true.
So, in actual police shootings the data show:
shooting more does not increase hit potential;
shooting 3-4 shots is adequate if placement is good.

C

Deaf Smith
March 30, 2008, 09:59 PM
At first I'd think it's weird the percentage of hits went down so far but...

Have any of you fired a NYPD Glock 19? They have NY-2 triggers. I've fired one so set up and it's awfull. Two, when you fire more rounds, I'd expect more misses for the simple reason if it's hard to connect with one shot, then it will be harder to connect with 6 or 7! And also when more than one cop fires, well then several 15 shot pistols are firing and that's a lot of lead in the air.

In Dallas about 10 years a go three cops stopped a shotgun welding man. The BG got out of his pickup and pointed the shotgun at the cops (bad move that.) Well they fired something like 107 rounds. Hit him 11 times I think (not seriously!!!!!) Some of the rounds hit houses behind him, some hit is truck, others it signs and trees.

So I can see both the number of shots going up and the hit rate going down.

Benzene
March 30, 2008, 10:06 PM
Instead of allowing antiquated/unrepresentative "data" to guide how many shots one should be prepared to use in defense of his/her LIFE, why not take REALITY as a guide? What types of weapons do gang members, say, use in their crimes? How commonly are 9mm weapons available and used by criminals?

Common sense, I imagine, is arguably that most potent "weapon" in self defense.

raimius
March 30, 2008, 11:14 PM
The real question is..."Do you trust your life to averages?" It only takes one instance of being that statistical outlier...

Look at virtually any of the mass shootings. VT and NIU have huge student populations of 25,000+. Unfortunately, the statistics totally failed 32 and 5 students, respectively.

Deaf Smith
March 31, 2008, 09:32 PM
Well guys look at it this way. I havn't had a flat on my car in something like 20 years, so should I haul around that extra weight and burn up more gas? On the average....

Or should I put in a fire alarm in my house as so few per 1000 homes get burned down?

Should I have health insurance since most people don't get so sick they would spend on medical care what the insurance cost for many years!

Ok, the chances of needing a weapon to defend your self are actually low. The chance you will have to actually fire the weapon is lower still. And the chance you will have to fire LOTS of ammo very remote. But as for how far you need to prepare.... that's up to you.

I drew the line with my Glock 27 (11 rounds), spare mag (10 rounds) and Centinial .38 (5 rounds.) Plus lots and lots of H2H training (it's my avocation.) Will I need it? Probably not. Will it be enough? I sure hope so!

Glenn E. Meyer
April 1, 2008, 09:54 AM
Average DGU - no shots fired. Don't carry ammo!

or

Take stat classes and research design and learn more than just how to calculate an average. :D

Deaf Smith
April 1, 2008, 11:32 AM
Exactly Glenn.

Never seen violence at my church in 50+ years. BUT we do read of it happening. Never seen violence at my workplace, but we do read of it happening.

Hope I go through life with no problems, but I know they happen to!

Raytracer
April 1, 2008, 11:41 AM
Whenever someone drags out that old chestnut - "Most gunfights are only 3 or 4 rounds" - to justify not carrying reloads, my response is always "Unless they're not. Then what are you gonna do?"

I carry multiple reloads more for the fact that the magazine is the weak point in any semi auto handgun system than any expectation of getting in a long running gun battle. My rule of thumb is 4 reloads for single stacks, 2 for double stacks, minimum.

The only time you can have too much ammo is when you're swimming.

Joe

Benzene
April 1, 2008, 12:00 PM
Deaf Smith, I can't agree more with your input. Excellent - in my opinion. One keeps hearing the pathetic - if not asinine - remark after a home invasion etc., "We NEVER had such an incident in OUR neighborhood!" Even heaven is NOT criminal-safe for the devil dwelt there once upon a time.

And, Raytracer, I like the bit about "The only time you can have too much ammo is when you're swimming." :)

Benzene
April 1, 2008, 12:06 PM
But let's say the ultimate does occur and a criminal is shot dead, and the police finds the shooter [the would-be victim] with a "Glock 27 (11 rounds), spare mag (10 rounds) and Centinial .38 (5 rounds.)" - an "arsenal" as an attorney might describe it to a Clinton-minded jury. Would not the "weaponry" injure the would-be victim who defended himself/herself?

Glenn E. Meyer
April 1, 2008, 02:05 PM
That's been asked and answered - will it hurt me in court?

Most of the opinions offered will be non-expert. I suggest one search on the issue to avoid repetitive prose.

The basic answer is:

1. Weapons related issues can influence juries.
2. They don't have to be explicitly raised, just appearance will do it. So you won't see it in the legal databases.
3. The influence interacts with jury knowledge, gender, expert testimony, etc.
4. Your lawyer and experts can help defuse such at trial
5. Someone will say - It doesn't matter if it is a good shoot. However, if you in a trial - someone thinks it isn't a good shoot.

I wouldn't not carry standard stuff because of the court fear. Avoid being seen as mall ninja, raving killer. Shut up about that stuff. Have a lawyer who knows such. Or experts.

chris in va
April 1, 2008, 04:00 PM
Fortunately we don't see many multiple BG situations here in America. Most seem to be 1-2 perps invading a house or holding someone up on the street.

So in those instances, when fired upon the BG typically runs off (from what I've read). You won't hear about 2-3 magazine tactical reloads much in the US other than LEO situations.

Even heaven is NOT criminal-safe for the devil dwelt there once upon a time.

Not exactly.

Scattergun Bob
April 1, 2008, 10:58 PM
You have again played right into FerFAL and his continued crusade for high capacity handguns. I see the wisdom of Mr Benzene, Mr Raimius, Mr Meyer, and Mr Raytracer. HOWEVER, gentleman in your rush to agree with FerFAL you overlooked the true issue. Is the data that supports officer involved shooting "and it is current data" valid in relation to civilian shooting incidents? The answer is no, only those small number of times that LEO personal are truly surprised does the data have merit.

Mr Meyer, you made some discourteous remark about learning better stats, yet supply none to support you claim! Please I am willing to read any data that is available provided it is legitimate. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, besides LE data collected and rigorously tested no solid information exists. Self-conceived reality, I heard about, and I think it happened this way are not the stuff to base a strategy on.

Frankly, I try to stay out of these discussions, how many rounds and how many predators and how many reloads don't matter much. What really matters to me is to use what I have available with decisiveness and aggressiveness, and to keep thinking through the fight.

To FerFAL I say enough you win, only a fool would take less ammo than was needed to win the firefight. So how many rounds is that SIR.

Good Luck, Be Safe

BikerRN
April 2, 2008, 01:47 AM
IMHO most people will run out of time before they run out of bullets.

To me it's the person behind the gun more than what gun is used. I feel equally comfortable with my Glock 19 as I do with my Ruger GP100, yet the Glock has much more ammo and a faster reload.

I carry the Ruger more than the Glock.

Biker

TexasSeaRay
April 2, 2008, 02:47 AM
I carry multiple reloads more for the fact that the magazine is the weak point in any semi auto handgun system than any expectation of getting in a long running gun battle. My rule of thumb is 4 reloads for single stacks, 2 for double stacks, minimum.

Some of you guys carry more ammo on your person just going back and forth to the john than a lot of cops who are far more likely to need their firearm . . .

Amazingly, I survived years of undercover work in some pretty nasty organizations with nothing more than a Model 19 2 1/2" and no reloads.

Jeff

raimius
April 2, 2008, 09:35 AM
Let's face it, any carry loadout is a compromise. What you decide to carry is largely based on what you wear, what you are comfortable carrying (weight wise), how you assess the potential threats around you, and what you feel safe with.

Most people will never need anything more than a couple shots...but then we get into odds and statistics again.
Most people do not get into running firefights, but it does occasionally happen.

It's a personal decision, made by no one but you.

Scattergun Bob
April 2, 2008, 02:30 PM
Jeff,

I was the butt of many jokes by my brother officers for carrying a second speed loader for my highway patrolman . How did we ever survive?

Good Luck & Be Safe, Bob

Glenn E. Meyer
April 2, 2008, 03:17 PM
The reason I mention statistical training in these threads is the constant misuse of the average as a decision metric. There is also the inability for some folks to realize that incidents of any type are multicausal and may vary in characteristics.

Thus, we see a lot of nonsense about the decision rules used. Yes, you can plan for the base rate response and probabilitistically you will be fine. But, again and again - what cut off on the extremes to you take into account.

If you don't get this argument and only want to argue from anecdote - then you really do need at least familarity with research design.

Criminological stats are all over the place and very suspect. The folks who actual know stats know this quite well.

Again, for the civilian - the modal gun usage indicates the need for NO ammo.

It's like folks arguing about stopping power mechanisms with no knowledge of physiology at all. Maybe we should talk about how a COM shot disrupts the basic humors of the body as described the ancient Greeks.

FerFAL
April 2, 2008, 03:28 PM
Benzene wrote:
But let's say the ultimate does occur and a criminal is shot dead, and the police finds the shooter [the would-be victim] with a "Glock 27 (11 rounds), spare mag (10 rounds) and Centinial .38 (5 rounds.)" - an "arsenal" as an attorney might describe it to a Clinton-minded jury. Would not the "weaponry" injure the would-be victim who defended himself/herself?

So you’d water down your choice of defense weapons just in case you end up with a Clinton jury??

That’s similar to the ideology of people that would rather have a lever action gun over an AK because it supposedly looks better in court.

Masaad Ayoob (spelling?) wrote about it enough, and he seems to know what he’s talking about.
Among many other cases, he explained one where a full auto weapon was used in self defense, with no ill effect at the time of the jury.
Don’t worry about the color of your gun, but worry about having a justified cause for the deadly force you used.

If you killed someone that was shooting at you, it doesn’t matter than you used an AK. If you shot the neighbor’s kid by accident, doesn’t matter that you used a 28” double barrel shotgun.
The only thing that COULD (depending on the judge and jury) work against you is your attitude and general reputation.

Say you carry two Glock 10mms, 10 spare mags, and a 2” S&W 44 magnum as backup, but your neighbors have only good things to say about you, it wont make a difference.
Same “arsenal” and neighbors can’t stand you and you can’t stop yourself form saying how much you want to kill people, then your situation isn’t very good.

Most important thing: Shoot in self defense, when you are in reasonable fear of your life. The gun you use? Use the best ones available, the ones that better your odds the most.

FerFAL

FerFAL
April 2, 2008, 04:04 PM
Scattergun Bob wrote:

Frankly, I try to stay out of these discussions, how many rounds and how many predators and how many reloads don't matter much. What really matters to me is to use what I have available with decisiveness and aggressiveness, and to keep thinking through the fight.

That’s a smart statement: “ to use what I have available with decisiveness and aggressiveness”.
Might I add:" To make the best of what I have"?

I have a small keycahin LED that I love. Used it many times. 1000x better than No light at all, but for a while I’ve been carrying a small, single AA LED flashlight.
I travel in subway everyday and due to the current situation in my country they are not that dependable. People have found themselves walking in those tunnels when the subs have mechanical problems ... in total darkness..
The Keychain LED was , lets say “bare minimum” for most situations. It’s comfortable to carry of course, but I considered I was being a bit to "convenient" with myself, giving up greater advantage just because of comfort.

Same applies to guns.
A small snub is not only a beautiful piece of machinery.. its also VERY comfortable. Why, most people that carry them don’t even have to bother with a holster, they just drop it in a pocket.
That’s great. But be honest with the reasons of why you are choosing such firearm.
You said “to use what I have available with decisiveness and aggressiveness”.
Perfect. But what you have available will only be determined by what you bothered to take with you, let it be a nice AA LED when caught in the sub tunnel as it starts flooding, or a 15+1 round when some guys start shooting at me when I arrive home and open the garage door.
The “What I have available” part, is only up to you. If you bothered enough to go in such a direction, the armed citizen way, why choose the one that offers solutions just for a comfortable and convenient spectrum of possibilities?

To FerFAL I say enough you win, only a fool would take less ammo than was needed to win the firefight. So how many rounds is that SIR.

I don’t know, wish I knew but I don’t.
Could be 1 , could be 5, 6 could be 15 or 1000 ( but I suppose that out of the question).. could be none.
If faith wanted it to be 6 and you only have 5, then my friend you are one round short of making through it alive.
Since we don’t know, what CAN we do?
The way I see it: Cover as much ground, as much possibilities as possible.
Without compromising accuracy and reliability, you can easily go with 15+1 rounds so that’s what I carry.
Others like single stacked 1911s better. You have less ammo in the mag but the caliber is pretty good, you still have 9 rounds if you use a 8 round +1, and the 1911 is arguably one of the best fighting guns out there, so I can see why people choose it.
The important thing ( at least to me) is just that, the reason. Not choosing a tool, one that I’m choosing to protect something as important as my life and the life of my loved ones, based on what the most comfortable gun out there, the one that bothers me the less.
Seems like a pretty bad priority to have.

FerFAL

Deaf Smith
April 2, 2008, 10:05 PM
Guys, Tom Givens, of Rangemaster, said it best.

"Keep in mind that when you hear it always happens to other people, well you ARE OTHER PEOPLE to everyone else!"

Scattergun Bob
April 3, 2008, 12:28 AM
Mr Meyer,

I believe you made this statement, please direct me to your source, I subscribe to both wound ballistics journal and The FBI shooting statistics review. I find your statement suspect Sir.

"Criminological stats are all over the place and very suspect. The folks who actual know stats know this quite well."

I am waiting to be enlightened.

Scattergun Bob
April 3, 2008, 12:44 AM
FerFAL,

You may not add to what I write, it is what it is. Just as I have not suggested that you alter what you believe, even though it is becoming old and has been a dead horse issue for 10 years, you may carry what you wish, you may define firepower as you choose.

You seem to believe that the tool that you have selected is the best for your needs, good for you. However, please remember "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to view every problem as a nail." What I think this means is that the gunfight will not be the way you want it to be, the gunfight will be the way it is. being prepared is great, being positive is wonderful, having 15+1 will only be part of the solution.

Maybe it is time to start a thread about the rest of the solution?

Good Luck & Stay Safe

Nnobby45
April 3, 2008, 01:13 AM
Averages take in the extremes--both with re: to the number of shots fired, and the number of opponents one might face. Where shots are concerned, there's a 50% chance you'll need less than the average and the same chance for more. Common sense says plan for more, and Murphy says a lot more.

Louis Awberbuck said there's no such thing as an advanced gun fight, and I'd dare say--no such thing as an average one (to those involved), either.

That's not to say that you can't learn from studying other peoples gunfights, but I think the one that really matters is yours.:cool:

MLeake
April 3, 2008, 07:27 AM
Years ago, there was an old MSG who was one of the Army ROTC instructors at UF. He was SF, VietNam vet, and told classes about the reality of surprise firefights.

Specific example, he was on point, ran into a VC point man. According to the MSG's story, both of them had their eyes about pop out, and both went full auto, M16 vs AK47. Both emptied magazines; neither was hit; both retreated for cover and reload.

If a Green Beret can fire 30 rounds at close range and still need more rounds, then...

buzz_knox
April 3, 2008, 08:14 AM
Louis Awberbuck said there's no such thing as an advanced gun fight, and I'd dare say--no such thing as an average one (to those involved), either.

Louis also won't have a primary carry gun that has less than 10 rounds in it, and always carries a backup, based on his experience in combat and instructing citizens who have been in civilian firefights.

pax
April 3, 2008, 08:57 AM
I always kinda figured that if I ever had to really use my defensive firearm, it would be on a day when Lady Luck and Murphy both personally hated my guts.

pax

Glenn E. Meyer
April 3, 2008, 09:34 AM
Scattergun - you continue to miss the point. It is that using the average only is too simplistic. You need to know the distributional shape of shots fired as it compares to various situations.

I can't give you that data because it doesn't exist in reliable form. The FBI shooting reviews, SOP, Wound Ballistic, etc. don't have that data. Their data is crude.

Then even if you had such, once again - folks need to decide on the basis of the extremes of the distribution and the probability of such.

That's the point, Sir.

When some one asks whether they should carry XY or Z because the average is some number, they, unfortunately, show their ignorance.

Scattergun Bob
April 3, 2008, 09:58 AM
Mr Meyer,

"Criminological stats are all over the place and very suspect." I am not missing the point, you say the words very suspect, I am calling upon you to supply the providence for those words or withdraw, Sir.

You obviously read only what you choose, please reread #18, I am in no Way defending NYPD stats with regard to civilian shooting.

I AM saying that officers lives and blood are represented by these numbers, if you choose to refute them, have cause and support, not bravado and "I think", show me a better way as I've asked or be gone!

Glenn E. Meyer
April 3, 2008, 10:34 AM
You still miss the point. You attempt to hide your misunderstanding the point by now ranting about blood and lives as this was an issue of honor.

1. The issue is from the OP:

So, the question is pretty simple; do you think that it is wise to expect to shoot just 3 or 4 rounds, or should you have a weapon with more capacity just in case that average no longer holds truth, or you just happen to be one of those that don’t trust luck when it comes to falling within favorable odds.
It would be great if we could have a mature discussion here guys. Data from real gunfights would be good too.


2. My point is that just talking about the averages is insufficient for statistical reasons. If you don't know that much about statistics, that isn't my problem or a point of honor (a cheap rhetorical trick)

3. You need to know about the distributional shape and how we can separate out various types of incidents that might have different needs.

4. The SOP and other police sources don't have that data. I have read them. Go look at the SOP and find it. I read the criminological journals, gone to ASC conference and know the experts on civilian DGUs and they don't know a source for the type of sophisticated data. Don't you get that? It's very simple and not a question answered by blood and lives.

To conclude - the OP asked if we can make a decision based on the average. No, you can't. Your comments are irrelevant and a rant if you miss this point. The average is insufficient. You need to plan for the reasonable extremes.


Have a nice day but please try to understand what I said.

Scattergun Bob
April 3, 2008, 10:54 AM
To FerFAL,

After rereading my last note to you, I decided to step back a bit. You asked a question in a certain light and I tried to explain to you how this data was gained. Is it relevant to us, this part of you question I did not answer, other that to say no it is not.

I said to you that the issue was old and stale, I did not take into account that perhaps it has not been a discussion you have been involved with over a great length of time, My Statement is drawn from 30 years of debate, and in my opinion the CZ-75 and the Browning Hi-power answered the question of firepower perhaps before our times. It in no way meant to imply that your thoughts were not relevant.

Please don't mistake my lack of information, "I never say what I carry" or brake the "never supply your potential enemy with anything, material or intelligence" rule as a indicator that I carry less out of some other convenience, NOTHING TAKES PRESIDENCE OVER MY SAFETY OR THE SAFETY OF MY CREW! It sounds like you also TAKE your safety seriously.

I share the quote below that I wrote 28 years ago with you only to say that I believe that we will live or not on decisions made before battle, your point is well and clear there. But, beyond that combat will be won or lost on other things besides what gun and how much ammo.

"Once the combat envelope wraps its' cold clammy arms around you, there is more than enough to think about besides how your weapon works, what condition of readiness IT IS IN, or where it shoots to."

I was hoping that this forum would be the place to have discussions outside of guns and ammo, "that just costs money", my constant interjection into this thread was frustration and never getting past guns and ammo.

Best to you, I'll leave you be.

Scattergun Bob
April 3, 2008, 11:31 AM
The report that I brought forward in #3 does not suggest that only 3 or 4 rounds were fired. It suggests that gunfights are fluid and that each shot string measure 3 or 4 shots. every time a lag occured such as a reload or movement it was measued as a new incident. I thought you knew what you were talking about!

What a foolish statement to make, "It's very simple and not a question answered by blood and lives. " This is all about blood and lives, numbers are there only because blood stains paper!

You still choose to avoid the issue of your self conceived reality being a better meter than the flawed data you are suspect of. You choose to ignore the the flame you wrote to ignite this discussion, it is not for me to explain this report and what it demonstrates to such a superior statistician as your self, but as I said in my second note IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CIVILANS AND THAT IS CLEAR.

I guess enlightenment is a ways away.

Deaf Smith
April 3, 2008, 11:39 AM
Scattergun,

When the Titanic went down, everyone said it was 'unsinkable'. So fewer lifeboats were carried, the captian delayed abandoning ship, and no one took it seriously till really started sinking!

I do read stats, but I don't rely on them totaly. Stuff happens and you or I might be the exception.

If I belive in averages then everyone ought to be 5 ft 9, right? That is the average.

So remember, "Keep in mind that when you hear it always happens to other people, well you ARE OTHER PEOPLE to everyone else!"

Benzene
April 3, 2008, 12:40 PM
Deaf Smith, you get my vote!!!!!! There are so many who lunge into intricacies of the physics of recoil, statistical analyses, etc. when in fact their knowledge is more often than not laughable.

raimius
April 3, 2008, 02:14 PM
IF half of shootings involved one shot and the other half involved 5 (just throwing out numbers), the average would be three. However, somone carrying 3 rounds would only be prepared for 50% of shootings. Now, that example is FAR too simple, but I think the point is clear. Judging by averages is not always wise. I do not know the data on how shootings are distributed. It could be that the VAST majority involve less than 3 rounds, but some shootings involve a high number of shots. It could be that a large percentage involve a larger number, but others only involve 1 shot. I do not know. Does anyone have that information?

Statistically, none of us is likely to need a firearm on any given day; yet so many people still carry one. Statistical outliers are what we are all trying to deal with.

I would carry whatever I felt prepared with, judging by the potential situations around me. I would probably carry more in a dangerous area than in a relatively safer area. It all comes down to the compromises we are willing to make, otherwise we would all be living in bomb shelters!

Dusty Rivers
April 3, 2008, 02:34 PM
Isn't the number of hits far more important than the number of shots. :)

What is your average number of hits per shots? Oh no I didn't ask that did I?:eek:

Tom Givens
April 3, 2008, 04:19 PM
I don't want to argue statistical methodology, and I'm the first to say that ten incidents is not enough to establish a trend or a statistical probability. However, my school has a lot of private citizen students who are involved in shootings. At the Tactical Conference this year I gave a Power Point presentation on ten representative incidents from our files. They are just that-- typical examples of private citizen self defense shootings. Here are a few tidbits from the summary.

5 of the 10 incidents involved an armed robbery by 1 or 2 suspects.
3 occurred on mall parking lots, only 1 occurred in the student's home.
The lowest number of shots fired was 1. The highest was 11. The average was 3.8. There were 3 cases which involved 4 or more shots.

In 2 cases, the defender fired 8 and 11 shots. These were above the average, and neither would have been able to do that with a five shot gun.

Here is my take on "averages". If you have one foot in a campfire and one foot on a block of ice, on average you're comfortable. Since needing more than 4-5 shots is a reasonably forseeable problem, I carry a gun that holds more BB's. YMMV

Glenn E. Meyer
April 3, 2008, 04:43 PM
Scattergun, we will just have to disagree.

I stand by what I said about considering the extremes of the distribution and not basing carry capacity on the mean - which is what the OP asked.

MLeake
April 3, 2008, 05:26 PM
Just thinking about averages.

So far, I've met two sharks in my first thirty dives... no monsters, the biggest was an 8 footer, but that still trumps the average.

I've had close encounters with a water moccasin and a rattlesnake.

I've had fairly close-up looks at a lot of 10 and 12 foot alligators (luckily, I was in a canoe at those times, not swimming).

My mother once got chased by a moose.

My father was wakened from a nap outside by a black bear.

My family seems to have a knack for running into problems that are outside of statistical norms. Ergo, I tend to try to prepare for Murphy. This means that when I carry, I do carry a spare mag.

Murphy could gift me with multiple B/G's, or a single magazine failure.

Cheers,

M

longcoldwinter
April 3, 2008, 05:31 PM
Do people really carry around a medium size glock, 2 to 4 mags and a backup gun:eek: I mean really how the heck do you hump all that around on a regular basis.

Deaf Smith
April 3, 2008, 07:25 PM
"If you have one foot in a campfire and one foot on a block of ice, on average you're comfortable".

Tom, I love that!

Scattergun Bob
April 3, 2008, 07:34 PM
I seem to be the focus of living on some average when it comes to life threatening event.

Please re read post #18

"You have again played right into FerFAL and his continued crusade for high capacity handguns. I see the wisdom of Mr Benzene, Mr Raimius, Mr Meyer, and Mr Raytracer. HOWEVER, gentleman in your rush to agree with FerFAL you overlooked the true issue. Is the data that supports officer involved shooting "and it is current data" valid in relation to civilian shooting incidents? The answer is no, ...."

I am having a private debate with a man on a public forum because he is not willing to post his e-mail address and is not what he professes to be. I know that this method is wrong and I apologize.

However, what I was hoping for is that someone would know that this myth presented by NYPD is a classic case of "RANGE DRILLS DEFINING LIFE ON THE STREET" 3 or 4 shots per perp, was the training drill taught in officer survival at the range. In a nut shell "shoot 2 evaluate your target, shot 2 more", ring a bell! NYPD was not gathering data on real life events, they were gathering data on the effectiveness of their firearms training. Of course the average will equal 4 if you are taugt to deliver a basic response of 4 rounds!!!!

The point is that anyone whom professes to be "on the job" or work in the field knows this is a classic error, right along with the poor folks in Hollister looking for the brass bucket. At yet all that was talked about was My guns bigger and I carry more ammo! or incessant yapping about averages. So, for those who professes to be "on the job" or work in the field, I suggest a little re-read, Street Survival documents this well, or perhaps we aren't what we say we are, right Mr. Meyer!

Sorry when I first checked aboard this site I was told it was serious, so tell me when do we get past 101 my gun is best. John Browning solved the problem of firepower in pistols for FerFAL before my time, guess this isn't the right place for me.

So Long & Be safe

Boris Bush
April 3, 2008, 07:53 PM
I remember when I was a youngman going hunting with my dad. He would take 6-8 shotgun shells for his single shot 20 gauge. For years and years this did just fine for him.......... Then the day came we were hunting and had a mixed bag of squirrels, grouse and rabbits. He brought 8 shells and shot all of them long before the hunt was over. I kept on hunting until I reached the legal number of animals I could gather for the table. As that was I almost ran out of ammo myself and I carried a light load of a mere 35 rounds.

Now he carries atleast a box (25) and a 22 pistol for that rabbit that sits there thinking "he don't see me" and 50 rounds for the pistol.

I might only need 3-4 rounds, but I sure as hell aint going to carry 3-4. Minimum I carry 29. If I have the BUG (always have it) on me, I have 22 for that and if I travel long distance add a 14 round mag of ball and a box of 50 somewhere in the car. Seems like alot but it realy is not. It is 2 mags extra for the primary and two for the BUG at max. Typicaly it is one extra for the primary and two extra for the BUG

FerFAL
April 3, 2008, 08:23 PM
longcoldwinter wrote:
Do people really carry around a medium size glock, 2 to 4 mags and a backup gun I mean really how the heck do you hump all that around on a regular basis.
A Glock plus two mags and a snubby or mini Glock in the pocket isn’t that big a deal.

The issue discussed is delicate to say the least, people feel strongly about their choices.

Just for the sake of clarity and to avoid some of the common clichés
“High capacity autos make you shot more and hit little”
At least for this discussion here, lets assume that the person is indifferently mature, relatively smart, and posses a certain degree of skill with firearms. Meaning: When discussing hypothetical situations, our hypothetical guy wont go blasting away like a fool just because he has more ammo.

I’ve even read people say that those that carry autos are inherently more violent compared to revolver guys, and more likely to choose to fire before it’s really the last option, just because they have an auto.

Lets just assume that autos don’t magically make you an idiot and revolvers don’t have mystical forces that automatically make you this wise, deadly accurate marksman with nerves of steel.

You can be a fool, you can be an awful operator, or the other way around, and the weapon of choice wont make any difference whatsoever.

While we are at it, there’s a common cliché that comes to mind right now, and does have relation with the ammo capacity your weapon posses.
“Only hits count”
We hear that and we nod silently, in respect to the wise, letters written in bronze.
Hold you horses my friends!!!
Only hits count does not mean you are not going to miss!
It can happen. Actually, statistically peaking you are very likely to miss more than a few rounds. So that’s one more reason for having extra ammo, even if you are hoping to need just a couple of shots, supposing you are lucky and fall within the favorable part of the statistics.

Another point regarding the good old “only hits count” .
Say I fire a bunch of rounds against and attacker. That attacker fleas.
Didn’t those rounds achieve their intended objective? I’m not advocates inaccuracy in any way. Just saying, at the end of the day, if you managed to achieve what you wanted, those shots fulfilled their purpose in my book.

Now for the real world case to use as an example.
Something similar happened here with a politician, ex military guy called Rico.
He was taking his girls to school early in the morning, and just as they exited the garage the daughter notices a suspicious car, which was waiting for them full of armed men inside.
Rico’s reaction? Draw his gun (Beretta?) and start firing into the vehicle.
We never knew if anyone got injured or killed, but they did leave and that’s what matters.
More ammo allows you the luxury of putting down range a certain limited amount of suppressive fire, enough to brake contact in some cases. Doing this with a revolver leaves you with an empty gun soon, but with an auto you can put one round per second against them for 10 seconds, and still have 5 or 6 left if more problems arise or if you need more accurately placed shots.
More ammo means more options, more possibilities, more chances of making it through.
No, in no way does it replace awareness and training, but if you have those, more ammunition gives you more options to work with if the situation calls for it.

FerFAL

Double Naught Spy
April 3, 2008, 08:32 PM
So, the question is pretty simple; do you think that it is wise to expect to shoot just 3 or 4 rounds,

NO

or should you have a weapon with more capacity just in case that average no longer holds truth, or you just happen to be one of those that don’t trust luck when it comes to falling within favorable odds.

The average doesn't mean squat. Mutually exclusive historical data mean nothing to your particular shooting situation. What happened to somebody else, say Tom Givens' students (or any other shooting data), doesn't mean squat. The data are interesting, but can't be used to predict what will happen to YOU in YOUR SITUATION.

You have a 50-50 chance your shooting will be average. Either it will be average, or it won't.

So do you have an issue with preparing for more than 3-4 rounds? It isn't like preparing for more will utterly destroy you if you train for a higher round count. What is wrong with preparing for the worst and hoping for the best?

protectedbyglock
April 3, 2008, 10:31 PM
Wow. My head hurts now.
I worked with statistics quite a bit in college.
Statistics can help you understand some things, but I don't believe they are suited to this discussion. Especially averages.

I carry 27 rounds total. One extra clip.
I feel comfortable with that.

3 or 4 shots? No, I wouldn't feel comfortable with that.

You NEVER know what's gonna happen. Period.
Be prepared with what you think prepared is.

sidroski
April 3, 2008, 10:58 PM
Take this for what it's worth - one person's episode.
Went into a cafe with six family/slash friends. New Year's eve so we waited on a table. As our table was being cleaned, two guys walked in and sat down at the table. I went over and politely told them they must have missed us waiting. One guy pulls up his shirt (drunk or doped up) and showed me a large auto. I turned around and not wanting to yell fire in a theater, told the people we would go to another place. The big guy at the end of the our line said something to the perps and I told big guy to shut up and leave.
As we were going back to the lot, the big guy knocked on the window (still not knowing he had a gun) and said something that sent BG#1 outside to confront me. I held my hands up and told him I did not want any trouble. He turned and walked toward the car BG#2 had retrieved and #1 was pulling his pistol at the same time I pulled a North American 22 mag out of my pocket, firing at the same time he started shooting. He shot several times wildly at the big guy as I shot at him (10 yards). He wheeled around and shot at me then, seeing he was not the only one in the fight with a gun. I got off another shot as he ducked and got in the car.
My wife in the mean time had ran to two cops she had seen next door and alerted them (before the shots rang out). The car passed them and then me as I got a .38 Colt snub nose six shot out from the car. The Police fired their glocks as I shot.
End of story - the perp shot 8 shots, I shot 2 from the N.A. and 5 from the Colt (yes, I had two speed loaders), and the Police shot 7 times apiece. NO ONE HIT ANYONE IN 29 ROUNDS (no blood in the stolen car that crashed 500 yards from the cafe and they left on foot never to be found). Start to finish 45 seconds max.
TO FALs POINT, the N.A. did it's job, causing the BG's to break contact but I think about it 15 years later. I now carry a few different small auto's but the hot weather keeps you from carring anything heavy. I constantly second guess myself.
Yes I am proficient with all my guns as I am sure the Police were. Moral to long story, IT AIN'T EASY SHOOTING SOMEONE WHO DOES'NT WANT TO BE SHOT.

David Armstrong
April 4, 2008, 12:14 PM
The report that I brought forward in #3 does not suggest that only 3 or 4 rounds were fired. It suggests that gunfights are fluid and that each shot string measure 3 or 4 shots. every time a lag occured such as a reload or movement it was measued as a new incident.
And I think that illustrates a big part of the problem that Glenn identifies with "Criminological stats are all over the place and very suspect." Your report makes one suggestion. Another report will suggest something totally different. Maybe we are measuring different things. Maybe the way we measure is different. For example, I've run across 4 different ways of counting "gunfights" in the literature. Thus, the stats are all over the place. I do believe you find certain trends and commonalities, which goes to the issue of the shape of the curve and the extremes of the distribution and so on.

NYPD was not gathering data on real life events, they were gathering data on the effectiveness of their firearms training.
Sorry, but that is just blatantly incorrect. By gathering data on real life events they used that to develop their firearms training. In fact, the NYPD was rather straightforward with the early SOP 9 documents in saying that there was no correlation between the training and the success in actual shootings.

"If you have one foot in a campfire and one foot on a block of ice, on average you're comfortable".
Actually, Tom, I'd suggest that on average you are not at all comfortable<G>!

In 2 cases, the defender fired 8 and 11 shots. These were above the average, and neither would have been able to do that with a five shot gun.
But that is of so limited use, Tom, that it becomes virtually meaningless, as you said. A dataset of 10 cases literally has no significance in discussing this, IMO, other than to present an anecdote. Anecdotal information is nice, but for analysis purposes it means little or nothing, and I think that is the point others are trying to make.

Lurper
April 4, 2008, 05:33 PM
Maybe the way we measure is different.
DA brings up a valid point. I have seen studies where they determined hit ratio by dividing the total number of rounds fired by the total hits scored (I believe SOP 9 was and may be still done that way). While on the surface that seems the way to do it, it is not the most accurate. The most accurate way to do it is to look at the participants and take the number of hits/rounds per participant.

Deaf Smith
April 4, 2008, 05:48 PM
Scattergun,

Most people do not want to trade emails. It's a good way to have a nutjob start bothering you. That is the reason for whom ever you are having the discussion with being reluctant to sending a email address.

As for Street Survival, right now I'm looking at that book in one of the book shelves in my office! It's a very good book.

I'm sure the NYPD is TRYING to read the tea leaves from what they get from their stats. Weither they go by average (50 percent) or 80 percentile or 90 percentile I dunno. I do know they tend to win most of their gunfights. But times change so they keep recording what they do.

The sad part is they have so many officers and so little time to train. And add the anti-gun atmosphere then you find it difficult to see many well trained officers.

Nothing is perfect.

Scattergun Bob
April 4, 2008, 06:27 PM
First let me say that I am in no way discrediting NYPD, God forbid that Ron Ice should hear of that, he is far to serious for me to offend. I know for a fact that this department has much refined training from the mid 1980's to which I was speaking. OK

This subject has generated some fire and maybe that is good? I am not really interested in being a confrontational individual over electrons in space, just got carried away, couldn't hold back the fire. Some of the most famous battles happened just so.

What I really wanted to convey was for us to look at the report correctly, and understand what it was defining, not whether on not it was correct.

Good Luck & Be Safe

jwfuhrman
April 6, 2008, 02:15 PM
Ive been taught and told to shoot until the threat stops. No matter the amount of shots it takes you shoot until the threat cease's

redhart
April 16, 2008, 06:13 PM
Had a shooting in the city of providece yesterday, my buddie was on the scene,found12 ,9 mm empites, the guy who was shot took 1 (one) rd. to the leg, and drove himself to the hospital. I dunno how many is enough or anything ,but I carry a 45 and two extra mags.

Lon308
April 16, 2008, 08:44 PM
Years ago, our Department switched from revolvers to automatics. The transition course was given by a representative from the company that built the large-capacity automatics.

After officers had a familiarization course of fire and demonstrated basic proficiency with the pistols, the last drill that the company representative had officers do was to fill their pistols with 15 rounds, chamber and hold their pistols at the low ready.

He then told the officers that, when the threat charged at them, they should empty their pistols into the target before it got to them. Being a state firearms instructor and already having done semiautomatic transition, I operated the range equipment. When I tripped the "return" button, it took the life-sized silhouette targets about 5 to 6 seconds to go the 50 feet and reach the officer. All officers emptied their pistols at the targets.

When the shooting stopped, we checked targets. Almost every officer got 3 hits in the target.

I asked the Company Representative for his indulgence to conduct another drill. We repaired targets, sent them down-range, and I instructed each officer to load their pistols with 3 rounds. When everyone was ready, I told them to put 3 well-placed hits in the target before it got to them, and tripped the target return. Every officer successfully placed 3 hits in the target.

I then told them to write a Department Inter-Office Report explaining where the 12 missed rounds from their first course of fire went.

I'm not pointing this out to insult anyone who believes in high capacity pistols. Working plainclothes narcotics, I had a 10-round Glock 26. After reading some of Fer-Fal's excellent observations of the need for high capacity pistols in a highly volatile civil environment, it seemed prudent to get a few 17-round magazines to have handy, just in case.

It's a fact of life that virtually all agencies that have gone from revolvers to high capacity automatics have experienced a decline in the percentage of hits in live-fire situations. This seems to indicate that it's human nature to think that, if you have lots of ammo, you can use lots of ammo.

A person can train himself to take single, well-placed shots, but this requires discipline.

We later designed an outdoor combat course with traveling targets, pop-ups, and "pie plates" behind a car's engine compartment that simulated a bad-guy's head. Each officer had to neutralize each target before going to the next.

Each officer started with a 12-gauge pump shotgun, his pistol with 15 rounds in it, and a 14-round spare magazine. We ran about 120 officers through the course.

When the officers went through the course, about 2/3 of them expended all of their ammunition and still had 2 bad-guy targets not-yet engaged.

1/3 of the officers neutralized all of the targets, and still had between 12 and 15 rounds remaining.

Now here's the heresy:

The officers that did best on the combat course participated in a pistol league that fired NRA Bulls-Eye type competition.

Most points in the bulls-eye course are gained (or lost) in the slow-fire event. This is 6 minutes to fire 10 rounds. The target is engaged at a distance of 50 feet, and the 10-ring in the slow-fire event is about the size of a nickel.

Also, ironically, the bulls-eye shooters actually finished the course faster than the non-bulls-eye shooters, because they would neutralize each target with 1 or 2 rounds and go to the next. The non-bulls-eye shooters were losing more time on the targets, because they were expending more non-productive shots.

The best rapid-fire combat course shooters were slow-fire bulls-eye course shooters.
(Just something to think about.)

Deaf Smith
April 17, 2008, 07:21 PM
Truth Lon308, you speak the truth!

In a perfect world the high capacity simi-auto should be the answer to all prayers... in the real world, a very high precentage of users use it to spray-n-pray!

Not saying to take away all the 17 shooters, but alot of the users depend in high output instead of high hit rate. And high hit rate takes skill and nerve.

mavracer
April 17, 2008, 07:55 PM
In a perfect world the high capacity simi-auto should be the answer to all prayers... in the real world, a very high precentage of users use it to spray-n-pray!

used to shoot bowling pins,now I know they don't shoot back so don't go there. had the '93 shotgun champion explain when I asked why he didnt have an extended mag tube "the absolute fastest way to get 5 pins off the table is with 5 shots if I miss more than once I'd lose anyway"

Deaf Smith
April 17, 2008, 09:21 PM
Mav,

Jim Cirillo, of the NYPD Stakeout Squad, used his revolver to get hits on three bad guys with just his six shots. He knew he had only six so he used them right!

mavracer
April 17, 2008, 09:48 PM
the older I get the smarter dad was, used to hate he made me put just one round at a time in my shotty hunting,but I learned to make it count.

Thanks to him now even when I shoot my benelli my mind thinks one shot one bird.

In SD make every shot count you may not get another.

Lon308
April 17, 2008, 10:08 PM
This digresses from centerline slightly, but as a Hunter Safety Instructor, I disagreed that our State had the special season for black powder after the regular deer gun season.

If it was held before the regular season, there would be more hunters interested in single shot black powder guns (in order to get in on the first Opening Day), and it may break some of them of the habit of attempting to empty all ten rounds from an SKS at a running deer.

Again, it can influence the psyche of the man with the gun, and reinforce positive behavior enough to (hopefully) develop it into the habit of making every shot a single shot, even if it is from a large capacity automatic.

Ask a shooter in a Service Rifle Match. He shoots 10 rapid fire rounds at 300 yards with a magazine change required, and a competitive rifleman will NEVER fire a miss (he may shoot an 8 or a 9, but not a miss).

Lon308
April 17, 2008, 10:29 PM
Doesn't this bring us full-circle in this discussion as to how many rounds you should carry?

If you can take out 6 assailants with a revolver or a single-stack .45, that may be enough.

If you need a full Glock magazine to hit each assailant, bring 5 spare mags.

PX4Rookie
April 23, 2008, 01:34 AM
Here in Houston there are alot of gangs and with that being said you most likely wont see a BG by himself. Even since Katrina we got in about 300,000 refugees from Louisiana and we soon became the next murder capital.

I always carry 4 magazine with me and when I purchase I firearm one of the main things I look for is how much ammo it can carry. I go to the range on a regular basis so having extra magazines comes in handy both ways.

Hook686
April 23, 2008, 01:28 PM
I'm curious if anybody has any data on folks with a 5, or 6 shot revolver running out of ammuntion and then getting blown away by the BG ? I liked the situation presented by Lon308, "... where the 12 missed rounds from their first course of fire went."

3 rounds in 5, 6 seconds ... 3 hits.
15 rounds in 5, 6 seconds ... 3 hits.

It seems if the ammunition is a smaller amount, more 'care' is exercised where it goes.