I barely had to bribe him.Originally Posted by TCinVA
I barely had to bribe him.
J.M. Johnston
Host of Ballistic Radio - Sundays at 7:00 PM EST on Cincinnati's 55KRC THE Talk Station, available on iHeartRadio
Pretty much, but of of course when we eliminate many of the actual variables that might or might not have an impact then the other variables that might or might not have an impact will also change. That is the point. It is those variables that you want to hold constant that seem to have the greatest effect, far more than caliber/holster/ammo/platform. A good shooter with a 6-shot K-frame that knows his stuff will will not be particularly impaired, nor will a poor shooter with little training and tactical awareness become appreciably better because he has a Glock 19 in an AIWB holster
Last edited by David Armstrong; 06-29-2013 at 02:12 PM.
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
But trainer after trainer picks a different gun, or ammo, or holster, or carry position. In fact, some change fairly regularly and don't seem to think it materiallyy impacts their chances of success should there be an altercation.
Don't think anyone has said otherwise. Again, from the original point: "....it has very little to do with caliber, ammo, holster or weapon selection. I’ve investigated a lot of violent crimes against civilians and these details hardly - if ever - determine the outcome."As GJM keeps trying to point out, there's a big difference between "other factors are more important" and "your factors are unimportant."
Last edited by David Armstrong; 06-29-2013 at 02:21 PM.
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
I think it is pretty much across the board of those who investigate and research CCW shootings. It is hard to find many, IME, that will seriously argue that a 9mm is better/worse than a .40 is better/worse than a .45 is better/worse than a .357; or brand versus brand, holster placement versus holster placement, and so on.
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
If you are suggesting that the differences you were talking about were between 9 and .40, or HST versus Gold Dot, then I misunderstood you. My understanding was that you were suggesting the difference between ball and JHP ammo and a 5 shot .38 versus a service pistol didn't matter -- which is it?
I'm not suggesting anything. A statement was made by 41Mag: "I’ll let you to draw your own conclusions regarding the what, when and where of being armed is really all about, but I happen to believe it has very little to do with caliber, ammo, holster or weapon selection. I’ve investigated a lot of violent crimes against civilians and these details hardly - if ever - determine the outcome. Feel free to disagree .... I hope your choices work out for you." I agreed with the statement by saying: "Strongly agree. I've had the chance to review literally thousands of shootings to various degrees and have found that those things we often tend to talk about the most (caliber, ammo, holster, weapon selection) rarely have much impact on the outcome, as you said."
If your question is have I found a significant difference in outcome of CCW events based on ball versus JHP in my research, no I have not. If you are asking have I observed a significant difference in outcome of CCW events based on the defender having a 5-shot .38 versus the defender having a service pistol (open to definition) in my research again no, I have not.
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
Are we just going to ignore "winning a basketball or track scholarship that's going to take you up and out of the ghetto forever"? I thought that was a straight-up death sentence.
Man, if John Singleton and Spike Lee have been misleading me for all these years, I'm really going to have to reexamine my beliefs about urban decay, crime, and the media.
This is a thread where I built a boat I designed and which I very occasionally update with accounts of using it, which is really fun as long as I'm not driving over logs and blowing up the outboard.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ilding-a-skiff
As to the first sentence, I'm not sure what in the world that has to do with the issue that had been raised. In fact, it seems almost purposefully designed to avoid said point. But perhaps I misjudge.
As to the second sentence, I'd again suggest you are making assumptions without the necessary facts. I know trainers who sometimes carry a j-frame instead of their normal gun, but I don't know too many who sincerely believe they're as well armed or capable with the j-frame as they are with a more powerful, higher capacity, self-loading handgun. Because if they did sincerely think the j was just as good, why would they carry those bigger, heavier, more expensive guns most of the time? Curious...
And on this you have me totally confused. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me (first sentence) or disagreeing (second).Don't think anyone has said otherwise. Again, from the original point: "....it has very little to do with caliber, ammo, holster or weapon selection. I’ve investigated a lot of violent crimes against civilians and these details hardly - if ever - determine the outcome."
As for all these studies of CCW shootings, how many of them included all the instances where an armed citizen was a victim of a crime and lost or was killed? Because obviously there would be a ridiculous success bias if we only asked the survivors/winners... all of them, regardless of gun caliber holster or anything else, would be in the victor's column. "Of all the people who won, the gun didn't make a difference" is a completely meaningless non-data sound bite. It's a lot like the 1-shot stop percentage thing... if you only count data where a single round was fired you end up with meaningless non-data that makes everything look better than it really is because you aren't counting the failures.
And how many of those studies count it as a success when someone uses a firearm in a 1-way shooting as opposed to a 2-way exchange of gun fire?
And how many of those studies count it as a success when someone "uses" a firearm without even firing a shot?
Because as soon as you start to look at how many rounds police officers often have to fire -- and how many successful hits they often need -- to stop a deadly threat it becomes a lot harder to swallow the old saw that five is enough once the two-way gun battle begins.
David, it seems ingenuous to say "I'm not suggesting anything." My belief, based on this and other threads, is that your position is that ball versus JHP, 5 shot J frame versus service pistol, pistol in a sock versus a kydex holster, is not significant in determining the outcome of an interaction. I am not going to try to parse every word of every post you have made, as it is about as productive as trying to squeeze the air out of a paper bag, but your position defies not only common sense but most everything that Pistol-Forum represents.
The most important determinant in successfully thwarting a violent assault is mindset--being aware of impending danger and being willing to fight back.
The second most important thing is having an implement to fight back with--a skilled warrier will probably be able to prevail in many situations; mere mortals tend to do better at incapacitating attackers with a bit of distance--firearms help in this defensive task.
The most recently released NYPD SOP-9 "Annual Firearms Discharge Report" data show from 2011 document that 7 rounds or less were fired in 65% of NYPD OIS incidents, while in 35% of cases officers needed to fire more than 7 shots to stop the threat. Interestingly in 29% of the incidents, more than 10 shots were required to end the violent encounter. For 2010, in 67% of the NYPD OIS incidents 7 rounds or less were fired; however in 33% of the incidents more than 7 shots were required to subdue the threat. In 21% of lethal force encounters more than 10 shots were required.
So if NYPD officers need more than 7 shots to stop violent attackers greater than 1/3 of the time, why would innocent civilians who likely have no body armor, no radio, no partner, no cover units, no less lethal options, no duty belt with extra magazines, yet who are being confronted by the same violent felons as the police need less ammunition than the NYPD officers? What about citizens with disabilities that may prevent their escape or avoidance of a threat and severely limit their ability to rapidly and effectively reload a firearm? If limited to 7-10 rounds, the most current NYPD SOP-9 data strongly suggests that in 1/4 to 1/3 of incidents that defenders will likely run out of ammunition before the violent attacker has been stopped...
Reply With Quote
