Usefulness of a single number (weighted calculation) to compare CCW choices?

[jersey_emt]

I'm a web developer and database administrator, and have been working on a firearms-related side project recently, which will be launched mid-year. It is an online reference guide for all firearms that are readily available new or used. Listings for each gun will include dimensions, specifications, photos, links to reviews, user ratings, etc. You'll be able to search by firearm type (pistol, rifle, etc.), manufacturer, caliber, form factor (full-size, compact, etc.), action type (semi-auto, bolt-action, pump, etc.), and so forth.

One idea for the handguns portion of the site I had would be to help people choose a concealed-carry weapon. It would entail creating weighted calculations to rank potential CCW handguns based on size, weight, caliber, and capacity.

For example, the calculation for "concealability" would take length, width, height, and weight into consideration. Since width is generally the most important dimension for concealed carry, a handgun's width would be weighted higher in the calculation than its length or height. So, a 2 mm difference in a handgun's width would change the "calculated concealability" more than a 2 mm difference in length.

The calculation for firepower would take caliber and capacity into consideration.

I'm still doing research and working on the details of the best way to calculate these two figures. I'm sure that these figures could help people narrow down their choices for a concealed carry weapon. But then I wondered about combining the two...creating a formula that would calculate one single figure that takes everything into consideration -- width, height, length, weight, caliber, and capacity. Guns that are smaller, lighter, chambered for a larger caliber, and have more capacity would receive higher ratings than guns that are larger, heavier, chambered for smaller calibers, and have less capacity.

I know that it's going to take a lot of tweaking to hash out a formula that actually "works", and that no matter how good it is, that many people will simply not agree with how various handguns are ranked.

My question is this:

Would something like what is described -- a formula that will rank any given handgun's overall effectiveness in the concealed carry role -- be something that you would like to see on a firearms reference site and buying guide? Or would it be something that you would just ignore, or worse, think that it would only add clutter to a page that already has a lot of numbers on it? Would it be something that you think you would use, or would you not even bother with it all?

Thanks in advance for your input. Moderators -- because this mainly has to do with handguns as a whole, the General Handgun forum is where I felt that this question belongs, but please move it elsewhere if this is the wrong section for something like this.

[JohnKSa]

I wouldn't mind using a single number to rank guns if I got to affect how the number was calculated.

Why not do it that way? Ask the user a short series of questions (e.g. Having a very narrow gun is: Not important at all, Somewhat important, Important, Very important) , then define the weights on the various characteristics, add the weighted values and then give the guns the ranks based on how the user answered the questions.

For example, maybe capacity is more important to me than having a short grip length. Maybe I don't mind a long barrel but a long grip is hard to conceal. Maybe width is what really causes me concealment problems while grip length isn't an issue.

I would be unhappy having guns ranked using someone else's single-number scale.

[bignz]

I like the idea.

Any thoughts on how reliability might enter your index? That would be a difficult thing to account for and would certainly bring you controversy. But it's pretty important in picking a CCW. Durability might be something else to consider. Also having the user specify where on their body they plan to carry.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

I'm not sure that a single numeric indicator of "concealability" would be workable, much less one for "effectiveness." that incorporated the concealability factor. For one thing, the method of carry will greatly affect the "concealability" of the weapon. For example, a horizontal shoulder-holster would give a premium to a short-barreled flat weapon. Handle length would be of little concern. OTOH, a 4 O'clock canted belt carry would put a premium on flatness, but butt to rear sight height would be a more critical factor. Also, canted, the height of the weapon as measured by a perpendicular line from the front of the butt to the muzzle (or bottom of the slide at the muzzle) would be the most critical factor in concealment.

I also think that attempting to rate the "effectiveness" of the weapon, by some sort of factor of muzzle energy times capacity would make any resulting calculations meaningless. A 11-shot .45 would be far more effective than a 7-shot .380, but would also be far more difficult to conceal. So which gun would be most "effective?"

I toyed around with some formulas on a spreadsheet when choosing a replacement for my Kel-Tec P-32 "Always" gun. The one that made the most sense to me was a simple calculation of weapon volume (LXWXH).

Don't mean to rain on your parade, and I would be interested in seeing what you come up with, but I'm not sure you can accomplish what you're setting out to. Neither can the gun manufacturers -- they always seem to be introducing new models!

[ATW525]

A problem I see with calculating the concealability of a firearm is that the length, width and height measurements don't really represent real world bulk with any accuracy. For instance, on paper two pistols might be listed as 1.3" wide, but one pistol might be 1.2" wide everywhere except for where a lever sticks out and extra 0.1", and the other might have a grip that measures 1.3" across it's entirety. Obviously the second pistol would be noticeably bulkier, but on paper they would appear to be the same.

[Lost Sheep]

Congratulations on tackling the job of creating such a tough and nuanced rating system.

One number? Different situations require different solutions. Bodyguard work for a high-profile personage (think Salman Rushdie) would have a different set of parameters than a concealed weapon for personal protection.

Different weather makes for different requirements. Summer in Fairbanks during the day is downright hot. A sports shirt is often all one needs, and a light jacket or sweater at night so small size is very important. In the winter, even a 140 lb beanpole could hide almost anything shootable with one hand.

OK, my examples sound argumentative. Not my intention.

My point is that you might have to create a second rating system to score the person and clothing characteristics as well as a rating system to score the gun. The two scores could then be combined to make a "fit".

Again, you have me awed at your tackling this job. Just attempting to come up with the questions will probably yield several articles that would be worthy of publishing in the shooting press. Have you thought of using this project to sell some articles to Shooting Times, or Guns 'n' Ammo and the like?

Good luck.

Lost Sheep

[Crosshair]

The FBI tried and failed to come up with such a number to describe to describe the results of its ammo testing, don't see how it will work for guns.

Not saying it can't be done, just that doing it well would be difficult if it could be done.

[jersey_emt]

Some very good points have been made, thank you everyone.

In the end, I'm attempting to rank guns on a scale that is mostly subjective, using only finite, objective specifications. This greatly complicates things. But I'm not trying to just make a list that says Gun A is a "better" concealed-carry pistol than Gun B. My goal here is to help give people a starting point.

JohnKSa's suggestion to have the user identify which specifications are the most important to them is an excellent one. This would help solve some of the issues that Gary L. Griffiths has brought up. Like he said, for someone who carries in a horizontal shoulder holster, width and overall length need to be weighted much more heavily than height (grip length). Allowing the user to assign their own levels of importance for each specification would help calculate ratings that reflect that person's requirements.

bignz brought up somehow bringing reliability and/or durability into the mix. That is something that I do not think will be feasible or accurate. In the end, most modern guns are quite reliable. Based on a user's input as described above, if the system assigns a high rating to a gun made by a manufacturer that user is not familiar with, the user would (and should) continue their research. That user will at least be given a short list of guns to focus on -- a starting point in a market that has a dizzying number of brands and models to choose from.

Gary L. Griffiths said that attempting to rate the "effectiveness" of a weapon based on a factor of muzzle energy times capacity would be meaningless. That's not what I had in mind for that portion of the calculation. I'm doing research into statistics of self-defense shootings, and will base my calculations on that. Also, consider increasing capacity by 3 rounds in two guns, one with a 7 round capacity, and one with a 14 round capacity -- 7 rounds becomes 10 rounds, and 14 rounds becomes 17 rounds. Even though in both examples, 3 rounds are added, going from 7 rounds to 10 rounds has a much larger impact than going from 14 rounds to 17 rounds. A rating based on capacity alone would have an logarithmic scale -- going from 5 rounds to 6 rounds would have a larger effect on the rating than going from 6 to 7 rounds, which would have a larger effect than going from 7 to 8 rounds, and so forth.

ATW25, you are right -- assuming everything else equal, Gun A might be 1.2" wide except for a lever that sticks out to make the total width 1.3". Gun B might be 1.3" wide along the entire gun. In my calculations, these two guns would receive equal ratings despite the fact that Gun A would be more easily concealed. But you still would be in the same place just comparing the specs of both guns on paper. The rating system I am attempting to implement should be considered a starting point. There is no "magic formula" that will pick the best concealed-carry weapon for you based on its dimensions and specifications. But say that after you input your requirements (JohnKSa's suggestion), Gun A and Gun B are equally ranked highest. You now have a great starting point -- do some additional research on both guns and you will figure out which one to choose.

Lost Sheep, that would add too much complexity to an already complex calculation. But by indicating how important each dimension or specification is to you (JohnKSa's suggestion), it could work for people in different climates, styles of dress, etc. Again, what I am trying to do is give people a starting point -- a handful of different handguns to give their attention to -- not tell people that Gun X is the best choice and that you can ignore everything else out there.

[KyJim]

This sounds like a very interesting idea. I like JohnKSa's idea of user input.

However, I think the concept of "concealability" needs to be separated from "effectiveness." You undoubtedly have been around the boards long enough to know that any statistics you use will be questioned and examined closely from data collection onward, ala Marshall & Sanow. I would let the user decide how much role this plays in his or selection criteria. There are instances where size is everything and "effectiveness" a very distant second.

[ClayInTx]

Perhaps not a single number but a system similar to the hazard rating used for freight, that system which specifies if it’s poisonous, if it’s flammable, , if it’s a breathing hazard, or a spill cleanup problem; I believe those are the categories.

For concealed carry it could be for the parameters you noted: length, width, height, and weight. Add a 5th rating which is for overall.

This would give a 5 column rating such as this: 2.3.5.1.11 for a particular gun.

Gun A: 3.4.6.2.15
Gun B: 4.3.2.6.15

Both are equally rated overall but arrive at that equality with different category ratings. This would preclude any objections based upon a parameter which one person considers more important than what others believe; they can see what made the overall rating be what it is and if they don’t agree because of a personal preference then they will know what made the rating to be what it is.

You have a real job lined out but would be a very good system if it can be done.

Good luck.

[Adventurer 2]

I use weighted decision matrixes for decisions that I make.
http://www.asq.org/learn-about-quali...on-matrix.html

[Glenn Dee]

Ummm It takes all the fun out of it.

[jersey_emt]

ClayInTx, I actually was thinking the same as you, using something similar to the NFPA 704 "fire diamond" that shows the health hazard, flammability and reactivity of chemicals.



Before I posted this thread, I made a quick mockup of what I had in mind using something similar to the NFPA 704 diagram:



("CCW Factor" stands for "Carry-Capable Weapon Factor")

Obviously, the details of how to actually implement this will need a lot of work, but at least I know that there is some positive interest in this idea. I've received a number of great comments and suggestions -- thank you so much everyone!

[Cool_Hand]

Larry Potterfield the founder of midway usa does something pretty similar but not as detailed and he does not cover the size for some reason, but he does cover some good points. check out his video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLoxo...eature=related

[44 AMP]

While I realize its a symptom of our modern age, there are still some things that are difficult, if not impossible to completely quantify on a number scale.

While I commend your ambition, any scale you come up with, even weighing all practical variables, will still be arbitrary.

Because of the nearly infinite variety of people, situations, and personal preferences, any rating system for concealment must be arbitrary to a great degree.

For an extreme example, based solely on dimensions and a vague "firepower" category, a micro .45 would probably rate fairly high. But if I can't get a fair grip on the tiny butt and/or it has a 28lb trigger pull so I can't hit the broad side of the proverbial barn, it would rate at the bottom of my personal scale.

Arbitrary, but then, I'm the only one who matters, when it comes to MY personal protection choices.

Good Luck.

[Kreyzhorse]

While I commend your ambition, any scale you come up with, even weighing all practical variables, will still be arbitrary.

Arbitrary is right. Carry method, that is holster type, has a lot to do with a gun's ability to "conceal."

[Rich Miranda]

Jersey, I like the idea, and I encourage you to incorporate it in. Not everyone will like it, but if the site has other positive characteristics (and a disclaimer on the CCW Factor number i.e. this is just a tool...) it would be great anyway.

I don't think it would add clutter to a page, assuming it is placed correctly. Sites like Amazon and Ebay have lot and lots of data scattered around the page, and they seem to do OK.

I do have concerns about the single digit number. It seems that it would be difficult to correctly quantify the many variables using just a single digit. Then, again, the only things that are impossible are those we believe are impossible, so go for it.

[LordTio3]

I'm a logistical data analyst. And I'm very good at what I do. From how I read you, we think very much the same way. My predicated assumption is that this figure is meant for people like us who will, excuse me, research the hell out of a pistol before we even go to a store to see it the first time. I don't know how many hours of video and pages of data I made sure to completely comprehend before I decided on carrying my particular weapon.
The purpose of this is not to give a rating system to tell people what would be best to buy. The purpose of such a ranking system is to provide, yes, and ARBITRARY data point to people who are considering one or a number of pistols for the purpose of concealed carry. That's all it is. A data point. It is not the end-all be-all guide and he is not so arrogant to think that that is what he's creating.

So... I'm with you. Having such a system would have been very helpful when I, and so many of my friends were experiencing this dissonance as we chose our first carry weapons.

As far as the equations are concerned... you must keep in mind a few very important things.
1. You must quantify every ambiguous measurement you make. Gun enthusiasts are cynical at heart. It's our nature. If you tell us that a USP Compact is the end-all concealed pistol because of it's height and weight measurements, (joke) then most all who read it will instinctively respond defensively. You must quantify, "If these dimensions are most important to your particular system; or to a well-defined stereotypical CCW system which you would provide; then these pistol choices more strongly support your preferences, by design."

2. After carrying for years, the two most powerful measurements that matter to most shooters, in my experience, are width, and weight in that order (YMMV). I've known several shooters who carry Hi-Capacity handguns with only partially loaded magazines to try and save on weight. It's a big deal, and obviously to several, a bigger deal than capacity or firepower.

3. Make sure to clarify that your measurement is only meant as a data point in a decision and is designed to help guide enthusiasts to what weapons best suit them by design and dimension. Like I said, we are a cynical bunch, but we are usually open to objective help by dedicated community members.

Thank you for putting in the time. It should be great to view when it is finished.

~LT

[Chettt]

I like your idea but the dollar vote in a free market society has already determined that the perfect c. carry gun is made out of plastic, is small, shoots a .380 round and sells for around $300.

[OldMarksman]

I've seen single-number ratings tried for decision-making in a wide range of areas, including, for example, things like the evaluation of job candidates, system selection, etc. I've never seen them work very well.

In the selection of a handgun for personal protection, everything is a compromise. The ones that are the most convenient to carry, whether because of weight or some size parameter, are often the least effective in actual shooting, or at least the least comfortable to practice with. The one with the highest single number may prove unacceptable until you go back and change the weightings until you come up with an answer you like. Know what? That's what people usually do!

Yes, width may be important for concealment, but I find the height of the grip very important, and if the width is acceptable, more important. So, should the one with the smallest grip rate highest? Not if the grip is too small to enable you to control the gun.

More useful, I think, would be a system that enables the input of a set of firm requirements (no heavier than... ; at least 9mm... ; 8 rounds minimum; ... etc.) and shows which guns meet each requirement and which ones exceed it and by how much.

Would I use it? I might refer to it, but I would not rely on it for decision making.

For one thing, one cannot find objective data on reliability; for another, many subjective factors are at least as important as the objective ones. How does one rate such things as grip comfort, sight picture, and trigger pull, to name a few things?

After I took my CCW class, everything seemed to point to a light, small, striker fired semi-automatic pistol; people listed the width of their favorite choices and showed photos of their targets. I think a single-number rating system might have pointed in the same direction.

So--I bought one. Know what? It did not turn out to be right for me. I ended up carrying a slightly larger (but easier to conceal, for me), heavier all-steel single-action-only semi automatic with a smaller magazine capacity than those that many people raved about. Why? Because I can use it more effectively, and as it turns out, it carries just fine.

[Jart]

From a coding standpoint it seems intriguing.

In the end, I'm attempting to rank guns on a scale that is mostly subjective, using only finite, objective specifications.

Sound idea - introducing subjective ranking of subjective criteria would result in a can - what'd we call it - "Combinatorial explosion"?

The table could include values derived from published specifications - one such might be "recoil energy" derived from data on the round and mass of the firearm. This would provide an objective number from which one could subjectively derive an "ouchie" factor which could be used to adjust "caliber effectiveness" and "weight" numbers.

It could provide a point of diminishing returns for cases where user input puts "lightweight" and "firepower" towards the top of the weighting.

Practically speaking, if a firearm gets a "bump" for "firepower" the exact same round must be used for the recoil energy calculation - attempting to allow for "I'll carry .357 but practice with .38 Special" would be, IMHO, inelegant.

I don't know about its ultimate value for target audience but if I had more time, smarts and youth I might be tempted to undertake the enterprise for its own sake. Sounds like a spot of fun.

[Cool_Hand]

I actually think it is a good idea. I probably wouldn't base my decision on a CCW solely on the data your system would provide, but it gives enough information where it might get me interested in a firearm enough to go down to a local shop and handle one. Also it would be nice having all that information about a particular firearm in one place.

[ClayInTx]

Too many parameters will make it useless by becoming confusing.

Based upon using it for concealed carry, my preferences for data are:
Length
Width
Height
Weight
These are objective factors.

All else is subject to debate and disagreement; that’s what subjective means

To forestall debate and disagreement of the tabled data I suggest that the value of each datum be based upon a percentage of actual measurement of all the guns in the table.
Example (for weight):
The lightest gun in the table is 21 ounces and the heaviest is 48 ounces. The differential is then 27 ounces.
Four guns being rated: 21 oz., 24.6 oz., 28.7 oz., 48 oz.
The lightest is (48-21)/27*10=10
Next is (48-24.6)/27*10=8.7
Next is (48-28.7)/27*10=7.1
Heaviest is (48-48)/27*10=0.0
(If I made a math error in all that then correct it in your mind.)

Now what’s going to happen when a gun which weighs only 19 ounces is added? If the table is made in a spreadsheet, such as Excel, the reference weights may be in 2 “master cells” which are referenced by the equation and the only thing required to rate all the guns with the new one added is to change the reference weight. Of course there should be a note to indicate the last update.

Getting the data is going to be the hard part. Listings on the websites are getting be more glitz than guts.

[Jart]

All else is subject to debate and disagreement; that’s what subjective means

Pretty much but he's going to need something to derive "caliber effectiveness" from. Marshall & Sanow may not be universally accepted, it may not even be "right" but one has to start somewhere. "Muzzle energy", "diameter" and any number of other criteria fail to satisfy.

Citing and using M&S is objective. Being M&S isn't.

Qualify, disclaim and move on.

Keep it too "objective" and every answer, based on width, height, weight, caliber, etc. will be a .44 Magnum Derringer.

Therein lies the coding challenge.

User input = weighting, select from "handguns" where ...

Not like something as grotesque as a 2" long, 1" grip frame, 4" wide firearm exists but, to the extent one might be found, that is where strict objectivity will lead you.

I doubt anybody here would use it. We're simply too marinated in prejudice. For the hidebound on a gun forum to use it, it would require the ability to exclude row returns based on...
Lock, any.
Lock, visible.
MIM parts.
Forged.
Investment cast.
Exclude semis (a number of folks here will not buy into a blanket "reliability is no longer a concern" qualifier).
Exclude revolvers (too thick about the midsection).

The challenge (and the fun) will entail trying to make sense of the whole thing.

If it was simply:
Length
Width
Height
Weight
Any school child could work it out with an afternoon of web surfing. Why engage in the effort when the answer is so easily obtained?

And, yes, I suppose one will have to use manufacturer's published data. The obvious alternative being to personally purchase every handgun in production.

[RickB]

George Nonte attempted to rate various service pistols in his 1980 book Combat Handguns. Unfortunately, he used a sort of sliding scale that resulted in identical features being rated differently from one gun to the next. Another thing to consider is diminishing returns. When a gun is made smaller and lighter, it's generally also harder to shoot well, so you can't say a gun that's smaller is better or worse, unless small size is the overriding desire. I have a compact .45 that's all steel, and a Lightweight Commander. The former gun is much smaller, but heavier. I've decided that the gun has "too much smallness", and the extra weight makes it shootable. It's hard to rate a compact gun higher when it's heavier, but smallness and lightness can be taken too far. The same sort of situation exists with the j-frame .357 revolvers; are they too small and too light for the .357 cartridge?