Firearm Forums - Arms Locker banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This discussion has come up many times before, and the insults hurled in another post have prompted me to bring it up again.

I said that anything that increases the amount of time you are exposed to fire, as in ZIG-ZAG vs running all out form cover to cover, increases the liklihood of getting shot.

The premise (which I don't agree with, btw) is that you have a 50% chance of hitting a mover that is trying to kill you.

For arguments sake, let suppose I can only fire 1 round a second. (way slow, but it makes the discussion something that everyone should be able to follow)

If you run all out, it takes you two seconds to go from your current cover to the next cover. If you do the shimmy shimmy koko pop, it takes an additional second.

Now, if the odds of hitting a mover are truly random (50%), then what the mover is doing has no effect on the probability of a hit,

So, if it takes two seconds for you to get to cover, I will get two shots at you, and if it takes three, then I will get three shots.

let's start with the two shot scenario:

The odds of any shot hitting you are 50%. The outcome of the first shot does not change or influence the outcome of the second.

the following are the possible outcomes of two shots fired:

Miss, Miss
Miss, Hit
Hit, Miss
Hit, Hit

there are 3 instances out of the four possible outcomes, or a 75% chance you will get hit at least once.

a single outcome out of the four, or a 25% chance that you will not get hit at all.

a single outcome out of the four, or a25% chance that you will be hit twice. (this outcome was included in the 75%, because we said at least once.)

Nothing has changed the 50% probability of any one shot hitting you.

now, lets look at all the possible outcomes for three shots fired:

Miss, Miss, Miss
Miss, Miss, Hit
Miss, Hit, Miss
Miss, Hit, Hit
Hit, Miss, Miss
Hit, Miss, Hit
Hit, Hit, Miss
Hit, Hit, Hit

Again, there is only a single outcome, out of the 8 possible where you do not get hit. Your odds of not getting hit have dropped from 1 in 4 to one in 8. (from 25% down to 12.5%)

the odds of you getting hit at least once have now risen from 75% to 87.5%

Again, the outcome of any one shot had zero influence on the outcome of any other.

This is very simple probability.

Now, having said this, I don't agree with the premise that hits on movers are pure luck - as anyone who has actually done so in the field knows.

If it were truly random, and if all truly random events were 50-50 (well the whole mathemtatics and science of probability theory would be a waste of time, and random sampling and failure analysis would be a waste as well), then the direction the gun was pointed would not matter.

But we know that skill, and aiming the weapon do matter, so the outcome is not random.

:devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
Aslan, if you had baited this post with a T-bone steak or a star BM mag you might have tempted our hero to try to read it. As it is, I'm afraid your effort is wasted. However, I want to thank you for a very interesting discussion of run/dodge/shimmy.

RIKA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,794 Posts
Remember, you can't logically discuss a good fantasy! Because there is no good logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
But the point is, the safest and smartest thing to do is balls to the wall from cover to cover. Bob and weave just exposes you to more fire and increases the chances of getting shot.

:devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,382 Posts
Actually, running isn't the best option. The human eye is attracted to movement first and foremost followed by color or shade. This is why I promote the snipers trade. Stalking. It may take more time but not attracting the attention in the first place is the best bet. Sure, you can run from cover to cover but every time you reach cover, your enemy may be ready for you to leave and lay out a barrage of fire when he sees you.

Now, if your seen, then it's best to get to cover as fast as all possible. Then get out of their range.

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Mike, you are correct, I guess I should have prefaced this as both sides are aware of each other and have already started shooting...This is that whole cover using bob and weave debate, yet again. (sigh)

:devil:
 

·
Site Founder
Joined
·
4,814 Posts
Well, I guess it depends. If you are running directly AWAY from someone shooting at you, because that is where the nearest cover lies, I think you would be in a lot of trouble if you make a straight bee line for it. But if you are running diagonally in relation to the shooter, then I would agree with the hell bent for leather method. IMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Yes, anything that basically presents a stationary point of aim (directly towards or away from the shooter) is a no-no...

:devil:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Now, if the odds of hitting a mover are truly random
You don't believe that for a moment do you, that the probability of hitting something or someone that is moving is random! I am not the best shot at moving targets when using a pistol or rifle, but I can hit them. I know many people who lack training that cannot hit the broadside of a barn on a nice sunlit day, and no the barn is not moving. I also know people who are wonderful shots when it comes to moving targets, hitting well above 90 percent of what they have aimed at. Shooter training and skill, the type of firearms being used, the conditions under which the shooter is firing, the speed of the target, are all variables that come into play with many others. The thing is you can improve the odds of being bale to hit the target through good training and good shooting skills and lots of practice. That is not random, nor is it a 50% chance that you will connect. That is like saying anything you do will either come out one way or the other and therefore one of those ways will have a 50% chance of taking place. Not so once the variables have been stacked to enhance one side's chances of coming out more than the other side's chances. If I have practiced thousands of rounds at moving targets, and have consistently gotten better at hitting them, then the odds have changed from whatever they had been to much closer to whatever is the percentage of hits that I am capable of shooting in practice. All other things equal to my practice other than the type of moving target, it is certainly not 50/50 odds if I am usually capable of hitting 95% of the moving targets at which I shoot - especially when I have been practicing on practical targets that simulate a runner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I know for a fact that it is not random. I beleive I commented on that in the original post...

However the expert on everything says it is random, and a 50-50 distribution to boot. (even if it was random, it is not a 50-50 distribution, at least not for a moderately skilled shooter. And for people that train seriously to hit movers, the odds of a hit are certainly above 80% for the first shot, and close to 100% for the second.)

While my hits on moving targets are not 100%, I've shot enough coyotes, deer, and other critters on the run to know it's higher than 50%.

But, I was willing to concede him the percentage to show that his position is still flawed. He claims that what I have described does not show an understanding of probability. Somehow showing all of the possible outcomes is invalid.

I'm just giving him the opportunity to comment and demonstrate why what I have posted is incorrect.

I fully expect to only find insults and threats and no actual discussion, which is what I'd really like. Maybe I can actually teach him something. (not that he'd ever admit it, but maybe he will look at the post and try to understand it, instead of just dismissing it.)

:devil:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Silly me, whoops.........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
no <font color=red>*</font><font color=red>*</font><font color=red>*</font><font color=red>*</font> sherlock, IF the cover is PRESENT. any little KID would know THATmuch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
andy said:
no <font color=red>*</font><font color=red>*</font><font color=red>*</font><font color=red>*</font> sherlock, IF the cover is PRESENT. any little KID would know THATmuch.
Yet you are on record arguing against this very information, even to the point of claiming that the math was wrong and that what was posted required was based on one shot influencing the next. I beleive term you used was that the "deck" was reshuffled before each shot.

(if necessary, we can probably provide a link...or have you now actually done the unthinkable, and learned something from one of us???)

:devil:
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top