Posted: 6/10/2016 6:11:43 PM EDT
|
I had an idea to create an index to rate a conceal carrier's EDC. It is a modified version of the IPSC Power Factor. It's rather simple. Bullet Weight (Grains) * Bullet Velocity (Ft/S) * Capacity ---------------------------------------------------------------- 10,000 During summer carry when I'm wearing shorts and carry a Walther PPK/S, my Defense Factor score is 63 90 grains (Hornady Critical Defense .380 ACP) * 1000 FPS * 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 10,000 For the remaining three seasons when I carry a Glock 19, my Defense Factor score is 239.76 135 grains (Hornady Critical Duty 9x19) * 1110 FPS * 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 10,000 Thoughts? |
|
Capacity is a tricky thing to pin down.
I had a little mustang II when I was a poor airman living in CA back in the 80s, pulled all the smog stuff off and it got great mileage. The E on the gas gauge stood for Enough, and above E meant Exrta. Anyway, handgun capacity does not mean the same thing to all people. What is 'enough' and for whom? For the guys who are actually tactical, like military and police, capacity is far more important than it is to a regular guy (like me). Empirical data says ten rounds of capacity is WAY more than enough, and I can (and do) carry a backup mag for capacity and redundancy. For the pretenders playing tactical, even 17 rounds in a mag isn't enough, regardless of how many extra mags they can or do carry. So capacity isn't on equal footing with bullet weight and velocity, thus your equation is off. |
|
Seven rounds was enough from 1911 to 1985. Just sayin.'
Folks have fantasies of fighting off AK wielding jihadis with handguns...and I just don't think that's how it works. At any rate carry what you can so long as you're confident and proficient in its use. I'd rate a gun by how well the individual can deploy and use it. |
|
"ALL MODELS ARE WRONG BUT SOME ARE USEFUL"
Section heading, page 2 of Box's paper, "Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building" (May 1979) in Robustness in Statistics: Proceedings of a Workshop (1979) edited by RL Launer and GN Wilkinson This one will no be useful. Like the ones before. |
|
Quoted:
Seven rounds was enough from 1911 to 1985. Just sayin.' Folks have fantasies of fighting off AK wielding jihadis with handguns...and I just don't think that's how it works. At any rate carry what you can so long as you're confident and proficient in its use. I'd rate a gun by how well the individual can deploy and use it. A big rock was enough for thousands of years. Just sayin. |
|
The formula reflects what happens to gun fans who like to explore the inside dope. Like baseball lovers who know all the stats.
What happens tho is no statistic ever launches a homer - or fields one. It's a human with good equipment doing the best they can. The reality of combat by firearms is that you must have a hit for it to count - and practice makes for better hits more often. it's common knowledge you make more hits you win the game. Don't worry about what might go wrong - it did. Respond by getting more hits. An experienced shooter with a .25ACP is far more deadly than a new shooter with a .44. It's skill and the ability to get more hits. |