Posted by Nanuk: I still think this is flawed data. You cannot say with any degree of certainty that 4 hits are going to neutralize every enemy, so how can you give it a 100% probability of incapacitating an opponent?
One cannot reasonably characterize these calculations as "flawed data" on that basis.
The analysis defined success
as two hits. It's an arbitrary but fairly reasonable assumption, chosen for purposes of illustration.
And there are a number of other assumptions, all clearly stated.
What the analysis does is illustrate, for those who may not have really thought about it, the likelihood of being able to achieve success with a certain number of rounds, (1) with an assumed hit rate, (2) with the shooter being able to stop shooing after a second hit, (3) with the shooter able to continue shooting rather than being knocked down or incapacitated, and, in the case of a second attacker, (4) assuming that the second attacker continues the attack.
It is a real eye-openter.
Flaws? You can vary the assumptions. The one that would seem most tenuous to me is that the shooter will be able to stop shooting after achieving two hits. Most people are trained to fire very fast, and would likely have fired several times before ever detecting a second hit, should a second hit actually do the trick.
There's a lot of debate about the fourth assumption. All of my friends who carry five or six shot firearms say with a lot of expressed confidence that a second attacker will most certainly turn tail and run after the shooting starts. That may happen, or it may not. There's a lot of wishful thinking in that, and more than a little justification of having chosen to carry a pocket firearm, not to mention the fulfillment of a natural need to feel safe while doing so.
If one is talking about a robbery where the taking of money or jewelry is the objective, and if the second robber can, if he exits the door, go away to rob another day, he will probably try to do so. If the crime is a carjacking, and the perps desperately need a different, operational, and fueled automobile in order to make their escape, I would not make that assumption. Somewhere in between is the perp who thinks he has a greater chance of surviving by continuing to close a short distance than by trying to run.
This data does not take into account the effectiveness of the projectile being used, it lacks any credibility.
You have completely misinterpreted the point of the analysis. The "credibility" resides in the math; you plug in your own assumptions. If you want to vary the number of hits that would constitute success, you can do the math yourself. One might be well served to define three hits as success.
There are a lot of people who reflect upon their groups at the range, assume that their firing rate is realistic, and perhaps also making overoptimistic assumptions about wounding effectiveness, conclude that they are well armed for whatever might befall them.
They can learn something by doing two things: (1) getting off their first and subsequent shots much more quickly--say, 1.2 seconds from signal to first shot and continuing at four or five shots per second to get an idea of what their real hit probability may reasonably be; and (2) putting a little thought into John's analysis.
Actually there is a third thing: having a willingness to discard preconceived notions that don't look could in the light of the results.