An alternate look at handgun stopping power

[marshallartist]

I believe its more shot placement than caliber. IMHO ANY gun is better than none when you need one!

Sgt. Chavez use to say "It's where you hit 'em, not what you hit 'em with.".

 

[theoko]

Right a .22 in the head is better than missing with a .45 and dead. I carry a 9mm myself. Sometimes i'll carry a .22 in addition to the 9mm because it is so lightweight, it feels like a heavy cell phone in my pocket in contrast with my Sig Pro, which is significantly heavier.

 

[hf3787]

It is more important to know when to shoot, than to know when not to shoot

 

[finity]

So what I'm kind of getting from all the "it doesn't matter what caliber you carry" replies is that we should just switch out all of our soldiers & cops handguns for .22LRs?

Just think how much money we could save &, since there is statistically no difference in the stopping power between the 9mm or .45 & the .22, then it shouldn't make one bit of difference to our guys & gals in blue & green.

They would actually probably actually appreciate it since they could carry way more bullets & it would be lighter to boot.

It would probably go over as well with them as when they went from the .45 to the 9mm. Or the from .308 to the .223. ...Oh, wait...never mind...



ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, where stopping power is concerned, the bigger the caliber the better.

I also find it interesting that (almost to a person) everyone who fully agrees with the OP & the article carries something larger than a .22LR. Methinks those who are supporting this study aren't as commtitted to the theory as they would have us believe.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I agree with finity. Wounds are much worse with large caliber. Make sense you'd want to make a big wound in a bad guy.

A 22 can incapacitate, but takes good placement. If you can do it with a 22, you can do it with a 40 or 45, or 50, or deer slug IMHO. If "stopping power" means have a person stop approaching you, it's a different discussion. If we mean "incapacitating power", I stand by my statements.

 

[Rob377]

caliber is the bullet diameter. Under the "bigger caliber is better" theory, a 9mm is better than a 5.56 or even a 7.62 And that's just silly.

 

[hoosierdoc]

caliber is the bullet diameter. Under the "bigger caliber is better" theory, a 9mm is better than a 5.56 or even a 7.62 And that's just silly.

Well, I was lumping a lot of things in there. I should say "round that transfers the most kinetic energy to the target". For simpliity I said caliber since we were talking about 22. I've seen tiny holes in people from a 22 and both ankles nearly ripped off from a deer slug hit from the side.

I agree, caliber was a bad choice of words.

FWIW, I also saw a medium caliber handgun round (can't remember) hit the skull and flatten out. We didn't believe the guy was shot in the head (walked in) until we did an Xray. CT scan showed intact skull with no bleed. He went home from the ER. It's shot placement AND energy transfer.

 

[GBuck]

So what I'm kind of getting from all the "it doesn't matter what caliber you carry" replies is that we should just switch out all of our soldiers & cops handguns for .22LRs?

Just think how much money we could save &, since there is statistically no difference in the stopping power between the 9mm or .45 & the .22, then it shouldn't make one bit of difference to our guys & gals in blue & green.

The article speciffically states that the data does not take into account barriers such as clothing. That means it also doesn't take into account body armor car doors or windshields.. all of which police/military encounter.

 

[buford t justice]

I know this thread is about handgun stopping power but I just got done reading To Hell And Back by Audie Murphy and he almost exclusively carried an m1 carbine which I always looked upon as a pea shooter compared to garand but he sure killed a bunch of Germans with it.

 

[Mordred]

This link has been posted many times and stirred a lot of debates. The simplest conclusion is, its not so much how big or powerful the bullet is, it's how many times you were hit that makes the difference. The military has known this to be true for quite some time, hence them going to a higher capacity side arm that can shoot faster. 3 9mms, 3 .22lrs or 3 .45acps to the chest...doesnt matter...you're going to die. /

 

[snowwalker]

Dang, seems like everytime I come to this site I learn new things to ponder, not to mention all the downloads I do. My thanks to all.

 

[finity]

caliber is the bullet diameter. Under the "bigger caliber is better" theory, a 9mm is better than a 5.56 or even a 7.62 And that's just silly.

Well, I assumed that since the title of the thread is "An alternate look at HANDGUN stopping power" it would have been understood that the discussion was about HANDGUN bullets (unless otherwise noted).

So for those that need things to be spelled out for them:

ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL the bigger the HANDGUN caliber the better, only comparing HANDGUN calibers. I'm NOT comparing Rifle calibers to HANDGUN calibers - which is the subject of this thread.

OTOH, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL the bigger the RIFLE caliber, the better when comparing RIFLE calibers, too.

The article speciffically states that the data does not take into account barriers such as clothing. That means it also doesn't take into account body armor car doors or windshields.. all of which police/military encounter.

So the ONLY reason that police & military need a bigger caliber HANDGUN round is soley for the times that they shoot through barriers?

That's interesting because I've read MANY articles of the military complaining of the impotence of the 9mm (or the 5.56mm in RIFLE caliber) in even "regular" instances where the other person wasn't wearing anything other than a tunic.

Also, I think that the reason that the police went with the larger semi-auto's from the weaker .38 revolver that used to be so ubiquitous was that they were "outgunned", not because the typical BG they encounter was wearing body armor.

I also find it interesting that you (& apparently the author of the article) consider "clothing" as a "barrier" that justifies the larger HANDGUN caliber for police & military. Are you saying that a cop shouldn't carry a small bore HANDGUN caliber because they usually encounter BG's with CLOTHING as a barrier but the non-LEO/military person wouldn't? I don't know where you hang out but where I live everybody I know that leaves the house is clothed including (most?) BG's.

Also, again, doesn't this fall under the "ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL" comparison?

"If I was going to have to shoot through a barrier I'd much rather have a bigger round than a smaller one" is comparable to "if I had to shoot a BG to protect my life or the life of my family I'd much rather have a bigger round than a smaller one" is comparable to "if I had to shoot someone I'd much rather have a bigger round with its attendant bigger wound channel & it's higher probability of nicking a vital organ than a smaller round that doesn't have those advantages".

3 9mms, 3 .22lrs or 3 .45acps to the chest...doesnt matter...you're going to die. /

Ah, more "mythical" thinking.

First we had the mythical "one shot stop handgun bullet".

Then we had the mythical "you might as well carry a .22 since there is NO DIFFERENCE between the ability for it to stop an attack (ANY ATTACK) than a .45". Even though that completely flies in the face of common sense as evidenced by the fact that NO ONE, who has a choice in the matter, actually carries a .22LR as a self-defense round on a regular basis or as their ONLY self-defense round.

Now we have the mythical "it doesn't matter what round you use (or apparently where you hit them as long as it's in the "chest" somewhere) as long as you use THREE of them the other person is GOING TO DIE.

Really? Come on now.

There have been people who have survived multiple hits to "the chest" from any caliber.

I still say that ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL you have a higher probabilty for a larger HANDGUN caliber bullet to do more damage hence you have a higher probability that the BG will either be more quickly incapacitated or he will give up due the psychological effects of more pain caused by a larger wound.

Is there ANY legitimate, fairly mainstream self-defense firearm instructor that recommends that you carry a .22LR over a .45ACP if you had the EQUAL choice (recoil control, finances, weight, printing, etc, etc) to carry either?

 

[Rob377]

Fine. Then a 50 caliber cap and ball pistol with black powder is better than a 45? It's a "bigger caliber." Or what about a bullseye 45 ACP running at 700 FPS? Its a "bigger caliber" than a 9mm+P HST, so it is better?

And I suppose that 9mm Luger is just as effective as 9x25 Dillon or 357 Sig, or maybe even 357 Magnum. The first 3 all shoot a .355" caliber bullet, and the magnum shoots .357" Only 3 thousandths of an inch difference, so it should only be about the same, maybe just a tiny bit better right?

As for rifles and a "bigger caliber is better," I'll take a 308 or an eve smaller 270 WSM over the much "bigger caliber" 44-40 WInchester, any day of the week.

Again, caliber is nothing more than bullet diameter (for those that need it spelled out )

But just to be on the safe side, I heard they made a .70 caliber black powder pistol, so it should be a super death ray.

 

[finity]

Fine. Then a 50 caliber cap and ball pistol with black powder is better than a 45? It's a "bigger caliber."

A "45" what? Is that a "caliber"? I can't assume that you meant ".45ACP". So, yes, a "50 caliber cap and ball pistol with blackpowder" would be better than a "45".

Let's now ASSUME that you meant .45ACP instead of a .45 PRB.

IF you could propel a .50 PRB at .45ACP velocities & get the same penetration & percentage of expansion then yes, the .50PRB would be better than the .45ACP.

Or what about a bullseye 45 ACP running at 700 FPS? Its a "bigger caliber" than a 9mm+P HST, so it is better?

If the 9mm+P HST runs at 700 fps then the .45ACP would probably be better.

And I suppose that 9mm Luger is just as effective as 9x25 Dillon or 357 Sig, or maybe even 357 Magnum. The first 3 all shoot a .355" caliber bullet, and the magnum shoots .357" Only 3 thousandths of an inch difference, so it should only be about the same, maybe just a tiny bit better right?

If they all had similar velocities, penetration & expansion then I'd say they should all perform about equally, yes.

As for rifles and a "bigger caliber is better," I'll take a 308 or an eve smaller 270 WSM over the much "bigger caliber" 44-40 WInchester, any day of the week.

Again, caliber is nothing more than bullet diameter (for those that need it spelled out )

Yep, I agree. "Caliber" TECHNICALLY simply means bullet diameter but you know as well as anyone else here that when most people talk about "self-defense calibers" they mean a package that incorporates all of the standard attributes of that "caliber". Would you be happier if I used the term "cartridge" instead? But then we have to take into account the bullet grain weight & powder charge... And lets not forget the bullet profile.

Since there are way too many variables maybe it would be better for us to not even try to have a reasonably knowledgeable discussion based on some basic assumptions. Since there is no point in continuing then the mods ought to just go ahead & close the thread.



Or maybe I should just ask you "what about the phrase ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL don't you understand?"

Ok, let's simplify it just for you.

ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL (meaning muzzle velocity, weight, bullet design, penetration, expansion ratio, shot placement & any other variable you want to take into account other than caliber) the larger the caliber, the better. That statement is still true.

Or you could just take it the way I meant it & realize that in standard modern handgun ammunition, fired out of a handgun, a .45ACP in "standard" loadings is going to be far better than a "standard" .22LR in an "average" self-defense situation. A .357magnum is going to be better than a .380ACP, and a 9mm is going to better than a .25auto. All of this is based on the assumption that nothing but the CARTRIDGE - & it's associated performance - is different (you know, "ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL").

I certainly hope that clears things up for you.

 

[Rob377]

f they all had similar velocities, penetration & expansion then I'd say they should all perform about equally, yes.
....
ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL (meaning muzzle velocity, weight, bullet design, penetration, expansion ratio, shot placement & any other variable you want to take into account other than caliber) the larger the caliber, the better. That statement is still true.

muzzle velocities among different cartridges aren't equal. But I suppose in fantasy land where you can get 45 ACP to push 230 gr rounds at 1300FPS, sure, it's better. I'm having a real hard time finding 230 grain projectiles for 9mm....do you know a source I don't?

All other things aren't equal in the real world, however. A 45 ACP won't put out the same velocity as 10mm or 357 Sig/Mag. So the assumption that they are is entirely detached from reality.

I understand the phrase, but it's inapplicable and unrealistic here.

 

[454puttna]

bigger isn't always better? I don't believe it

 

[theoko]

hmm the 3 .22s, 3 9mms, and 3 45s, if they all hit vital organs they are all effective. But I guess if they all hit non vital areas, then the .45s would win hands down. I think that the ammo available today is far more advanced which bring the 9mm close to the .45 so that it is as good a stopper. .22s are not in the same league of course.

 

[foszoe]

ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL (meaning muzzle velocity, weight, bullet design, penetration, expansion ratio, shot placement & any other variable you want to take into account other than caliber) the larger the caliber, the better. That statement is still true.

You are right theoretically but to get all things equal pragmatically for individual shooters is where "ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL" breaks down. Its like all those equations that hold true in a vacuum. A feather WILL fall at the same rate as a shell casing, but we don't ever encounter real life vacuums all that much in day to day life. And when it comes to real life applicability where I am trying to stop an attacker, "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL" won't determine my choice of caliber for me. Its more important to recognize where things AREN'T equal and choose the caliber that fits me to compensate for those factors; recoil sensitivity, reaction to noise, muzzle blast and eyesight, is it comfortable enough for every day carry etc things that physiologically and psychologically will make things UNEQUAL on an individual level THEN when someone evaluates the handgun stopping power using me as the foundation for their study and finds that by adding me to the equation a .32 has more stopping power than a .45 that will be what matters to me in the dark alley at midnight.

 

[finity]

You are right theoretically but to get all things equal pragmatically for individual shooters is where "ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL" breaks down. Its like all those equations that hold true in a vacuum. A feather WILL fall at the same rate as a shell casing, but we don't ever encounter real life vacuums all that much in day to day life. And when it comes to real life applicability where I am trying to stop an attacker, "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL" won't determine my choice of caliber for me. Its more important to recognize where things AREN'T equal and choose the caliber that fits me to compensate for those factors; recoil sensitivity, reaction to noise, muzzle blast and eyesight, is it comfortable enough for every day carry etc things that physiologically and psychologically will make things UNEQUAL on an individual level THEN when someone evaluates the handgun stopping power using me as the foundation for their study and finds that by adding me to the equation a .32 has more stopping power than a .45 that will be what matters to me in the dark alley at midnight.

"All else being equal" already takes YOU into account. It also takes into account lighting conditions, temperature, humidity, wind speed, SHOT PLACEMENT, any material that the bullet has to travel through, size, orientation & physical condition of the shootee along with any other variables that you can hold constant. The only thing that changes is the "caliber" (or should I say "cartridge").

I will grant you that in a real world dynamic situation there is no way to control all those other variables but that's not the point. THE POINT IS that using any situation as a GIVEN with the ONLY thing that's changed is the cartridge used, the larger/better ballistically/better expanding the bullet the more damage that is going to occur & the more LIKELY it is to stop the attack sooner. Which to me is the definition of "stopping power". I never said it was an absolute. I never said anything about a "one shot stop".

Which is kind of what I've said...several times. The part that you & Silverado quoted isn't the only thing I said in my posts. If you read all of them in this thread I think you'll see that.

If you DON'T hold everything else equal then there is NO WAY to EVER talk intelligently about self-defense cartridges. OR tactics. Or ANYTHING else at all, for that matter. That's why they use CONTROL GROUPS in any scientific test - to try to eliminate or minimize the effects of any variables other than what they are trying to test.

That said, I am still going to say, without a doubt, that ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL a larger bullet will have a higher probability of causing more damage to an attacker therefore it is a better choice for sel-defense.

Or to state it more succinctly - the bigger the caliber, the better.

I'm not saying it would be better FOR YOU, under ALL situations, to carry a bigger caliber. If YOU can't shoot a certain gun well - don't use it. If all you can handle is a .22LR then that's what you should use (or practice with something bigger until you can handle it better).

All I'm saying is that to make the statement that "a .22LR is just as good as a 9mm is just as good as a .357magnum is just as good as a .45ACP so you might as well only ever carry a .22" is just silly & is not recommended by ANY legitimate self-defense firearms instructor or anyone else who has ANY COMMON SENSE at all.

 

[crispy]

All I'm saying is that to make the statement that "a .22LR is just as good as a 9mm is just as good as a .357magnum is just as good as a .45ACP so you might as well only ever carry a .22" is just silly & is not recommended by ANY legitimate self-defense firearms instructor or anyone else who has ANY COMMON SENSE at all.

Who made this statement?

Certainly not the article...