From: rwalton@NeXT.COM (Robert Walton)
Newsgroups: rec.guns,rec.hunting
Subject: Rating Guns for Purchase
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:10:12 GMT
Followup-To: rec.guns


For those of you interested in rating firearms, I offer the following  
digression (see appropriate disclaimers at the end of this posting)...


I was recently in the market for a home defense handgun for my wife.   
Being a die hard for data and numbers, I compiled some criteria and  
measured a select number of handguns against these criteria.  Each  
category gets a 1-10 score multiplied by the category weight (eg., 9 x.25  
= 2.25), a simple weighted average.  The total weights = 1.0 so the best  
possible score for a gun = 10.  In devising a set of criteria for my wife,  
I took into account she is a novice, seldom shoots, is 5'4", likes shiny  
finishes, and has small hands.  I developed the following categories and  
weights for her self-defense gun:
	x.25 Reliable (tendency to malfunction for this shooter)
	x.25 Effective (accuracy and damage when used by this shooter)
	x.20 Manageable (ease of handling/use for this shooter)
	x.10 Firepower (rapid fire potential)
	x.10 "Fun" (so this shooter will practice)
	x.10 Aesthetics (to instill pride of ownership, care, etc...)

The way I used this system was:
1) Decide on the purpose and shooter
2) Develop the criteria and weights (ensure the sum of the weights = 1.0)
3) Rate the guns and multiply the weights
4) Sum up the total for each gun (1-10)
5) Pick the top 3 (or 4 or 5, if you want)
7) Decide amongst these based upon price and feel (rent one if available).

		Rel	Eff	Man	Fire	Fun	Aesth	Total
Sig 230		2.0	1.25	1.4	.4	1.0	 1.0	7.05	
Browning BDA	2.0	1.25	1.2	.9	1.0	 1.0	7.35
Walther PP*	2.0	1.0	1.0	.4	1.0	 .5	5.9
S&W 66, .38	2.5	1.25	1.6	.3	1.0	 .9	7.55
S&W 66, .357	2.5	2.0	0.6	.1	.5	 .9	6.6
S&W 686, .38	2.5	1.25	1.8	.3	1.0	 .9	7.75
S&W 686, .357	2.5	2.0	0.8	.2	.5	 .9	6.9

*German Police surplus, blue, in .32 ACP with rubber wrap-around grips

For comparison, here's how the same guns (and a couple of others) would  
have scored if I were the intended shooter rather than my wife (I rate  
myself an experienced competitive shooter, shoots often, 6'1", medium  
hands):

	x.25 Reliable (tendency to malfunction for this shooter)
	x.25 Effective (accuracy and damage when used by this shooter)
	x.20 Manageable (ease of use for this shooter)
	x.15 Firepower (rapid fire potential and capacity)
	x.15 Durability & Aesthetics (of parts and finish)


		Rel	Eff	Man	Fire	Dur	Total
Sig 230		2.25	1.5	2.0	.6	1.35	 7.7	
Browning BDA	2.25	1.5	2.0	1.2	1.35	 8.3
Walther PP	2.25	1.25	2.0	.6	1.35	 7.45
S&W 66, .38	2.5	1.5	2.0	.6	1.5	 8.1
S&W 66, .357	2.5	2.25	1.6	.3	1.35	 8.0
S&W 686, .38	2.5	1.5	2.0	.6	1.5	 8.1
S&W 686, .357	2.5	2.25	1.8	.45	1.5	 8.5
Desert Eagle*	2.25	2.5	1.6	.75	1.5	 8.6	
Browning HP**	2.25	2.0	2.0	1.5	1.35	 9.1
S&W 629		2.5	2.5	1.8	.45	1.5	 8.75

Notes on categories:
Define them however you like.  Here's what they meant to me...

In rating reliability I rate revolvers slightly ahead of autos, though I'm  
told recent statistics show that some autos today have better reliability  
than revolvers.  You'll note I gave the same guns a higher rating for me  
than my wife.  This is to take into account an experienced shooter v. a  
novice.  The experienced shooter can not only recognize and avoid  
potential malfunctions but can resolve them quickly (ie., stove pipes and  
such).

In rating effectiveness, always a hot topic, I simply am looking at this  
from a self-defense point of view v. a human target.  Beyond a certain  
threshold more ballistic damage becomes moot, so the difference between a  
50 AE and a .380, while dramatic, is not linear.  Besides, the recent  
advent of such ammo as the Winchester Black Talon and PMC Starfire give  
performance in the smaller rounds that should help them compete with  
larger bore conventional ammo.  You can choose to disagree and set your  
own weighting, of course.

In rating manageability I took into account ease of loading, safeties, and  
recoil consideration.  It might be worthwhile to break these out as  
separate categories for finer distinctions.

I rated firepower as a combination of capacity and target acquisition  
after the first and subsequent shots, hence an inverse relationship to  
effectiveness, generally.  A semi-auto with 6 shots should score slightly  
better than a revolver due to revolver DA for each pull.

In rating durability and aesthetics, I simply took into account the  
ruggedness of the firearm and the type of finish, giving stainless a  
higher value than blue, for instance, and the 686 a higher rating than the  
66 for repeated magnum firing (IMO the 66 is not quite as rugged), and  
revolvers slightly better ratings than autos, generally.

Try this approach if you have the time and see what results you get.  Do  
you own the guns you should?  I know you were looking for an excuse to go  
out and buy others...

Good luck!

P.S.  Join the NRA now, and VOTE!

NOTE:  This posting represents the opinions of the poster only, not those  
of NeXT Computer, Inc.  The poster is not a gunsmith nor an expert giving  
advice regarding firearms performance, nor does he endorse the products  
mentioned in this posting as safe or superior to any products mentioned or  
unmentioned.  All liability for firearms use, ownership, and purchase is  
assumed by the firearms owner.  Safe and responsible firearms use is every  
gun owner's responsibility.