An alternate look at handgun stopping power

[Mark in GA]

I agree with the whole make sure you have a gun crowd. I carry the largest that my cloths allow depending on the weather. That might be a 1911 sometimes, but more often that not its a Kahr or a S&W 640.

Mark in GA

 

[FERLACH]

This is well worth reading. Very informative. thanks

 

[OD*]

But I suppose in fantasy land where you can get 45 ACP to push 230 gr rounds at 1300FPS, sure, it's better.

It's called a 460 Rowland.

 

[Dentoro]

Seems the bigger slower bullets do a better job of stopping. But it confirms to me......It's only a wuss caliber till you get shot with it!

 

[finity]

Who made this statement?

Certainly not the article...

Well, how about the OP (quoting the article):

Hi All,
Here's an interesting article on stopping power of common handgun cartridges based on data compiled over 10 years from actual gun fights. This is written by a firearms instructor for a central-Ohio PD. It compares everything from .22lr all the way up to .50AE.

Conclusion
This study took me a long time and a lot of effort to complete. Despite the work it took, I'm glad I did it. The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s. I've stopped worrying about trying to find the "ultimate" bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough "stopping power." Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important.

Or IndySSD where he AGREES with that quote above:

Didn't read the link but the quote above is pretty much the conclusion I have come to as well.

Shot placement coupled with equipment familiarity, reliability and ammunition capacity capabilities have replaced my "I need BIG Bullets" thought process.

Here is a post by Kingnereli that seems to be agreeing with my contention that "caliber" DOES matter:

Worthless article. The data seems far to shaped by the no name researcher to be valid. I also find it humorous that he did all this work just to conclude that there is no magic bullet, that shot placement and a reliable weapon are more important than caliber. Imagine that.

There are several things more important that caliber but when the time comes for that choice there are a few points that can't be overlooked. The only time caliber doesn't matter is with perfect shot placement(assuming adequate penetration) and psychological stops. In all other scenarios the more blood that is let out the faster incapacitation occurs. Big holes let out more blood than small holes.

And here is your response post that seems to be implying that you disagree with him:

Where is your study?

So, if you disagree that "caliber" matters then that must mean, logically, that you think that "caliber" doesn't matter &, therefore, you agree with the article that you should "carry what you want" because "caliber really isn't all that important."

So the answer to your above question is "you did".

(yes, I know that no one specifically said those exact words. I was paraphrasing.)

 

[foszoe]

"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").

This is exactly why I agreed that in a theoretical scientifically controlled environment, with the exception of the person being included unless the statement is further qualified.

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".

I too never said anything about a "one shot stop". I would concede the point that with "ALL THINGS EQUAL" in a scientifically controlled experiment, a .45 has a better chance at a one shot stop than a .22LR for CERTAIN individuals. However that will NEVER be able to take into account each individual in the situation described above which was the point of my post. To hold the position that "ALL THINGS EQUAL" includes the individual breaks down except in a theoretical world that individuals have a very limited chance of ever encountering. Although the claim is made above that the individual is part of the "ALL THINGS EQUAL" If the individual is controlled for, and only the caliber is changed, then based on the criteria given, stopping an attack, one will find a caliber that a given individual is better able to control and employ, that caliber may be a .45 but it may be a .380. If one takes the same caliber that the first individual had the most success with based on the criteria designated, and bring in the next individual will the results be the same? I would say no and hold the position that for the next individual a smaller caliber might have more stopping power than a larger one.

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.

I absolutely agree with the above, which is why they try to eliminate human interference in most scientifically controlled experiments as its one of the hardest variables to control for, otherwise psychology would be as exact a science as physics laws controlling ballistics. The fact that tactics employed can vary from one expert to another I would site as evidence for the point I am making. Given a complex scenario, would two different experts react exacly the same? Even if they were Navy Seals with exactly the same training, I believe one would still encounter statistically significant variances and that these variance would be greater than the variation of bench tested ballistics governed by the laws of physics. One can bench test ammunition into gelatin and determine wound channels and characteristics, but unless they make a .45 caliber that is the exact same weight as a .22 with exactly the same amount of felt recoil, with exactly the same amount of muzzle flash, and the exact same grip characteristics one can not introduce a PERSON into the equation and hold that all things are equal. That is exactly why there is disagreement on this thread. In scientific experiments there are the controls and the variable. With the caliber varying, but bench tested, one is close to being scientifically controlled as possible for the variable of caliber. A vise doesn't sense weight, can be adjusted to grip different guns, doesn't see muzzle flash, doesn't have a memory of recoil, noise. Doesn't flinch etc. Once a person is introduced, caliber is not the only variable changing in the scientfic experiment. In a multivariate problem we will have multiple valid solutions.

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).

In this statement I think we completely agree whiich is why I was surprised that it seemed we disagreed when I read through your post.

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.

This I agree with absolutely. I guess I am really trying to take your statement and be slightly more specific.

The gun one should carry should be the largest caliber that one can reliably operate as needed when needed to achieve an agreed upon goal, in this case stopping power. If a person starts with a .22 and works up to a .45 there is the possibility that all the ingredients needed for stopping power decrease with an increase in caliber.

If you can agree with that statement then we are really talking past each other and don't have any disagreement between our position/belief.

Sales phrases and demonstrations I didn't agree with, are all based around ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL without including the individual. Placing various bullets on the calander to impress with size,telling a customer not to worry about recoil because it would only be fired once or twice. etc.


Me? I have shot a few pistols, and I settled on a comfort level with a .32. I can hit something with it, easier to conceal, easier to manuever in close quarters, I can fire it off multiple times without my ears ringing for the next hour, the muzzle flash is tolerable, and I will carry it everywhere. I also carry a 9mm most of the time, but if its 7/10 days with the 9mm, Its 9/10 with the .32 and on the tenth day it is probably a .25acp (gasp!)

 

[lordt313]

Good info, thanks for posting. I have been telling friends for years there is no significant difference between 9mm and .40 in a defensive situation and this will help my argument.

 

[Hayseed_40]

Good info, thanks for posting. I have been telling friends for years there is no significant difference between 9mm and .40 in a defensive situation and this will help my argument.

On paper ther may not be a significant statistical difference. But with 40 having 11% more one-shot stops than 9 - do you want your life to be in one of the fights in that 11%?

We need to pick the catridge that will put the fight in our favor the most (also factoring accuracy with the round, etc).

 

[finity]

The gun one should carry should be the largest caliber that one can reliably operate as needed when needed to achieve an agreed upon goal, in this case stopping power. If a person starts with a .22 and works up to a .45 there is the possibility that all the ingredients needed for stopping power decrease with an increase in caliber.

If you can agree with that statement then we are really talking past each other and don't have any disagreement between our position/belief.

Well, that's good. I guess we agree then because I stated almost exactly that:

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).

Sales phrases and demonstrations I didn't agree with, are all based around ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL without including the individual. Placing various bullets on the calander to impress with size,telling a customer not to worry about recoil because it would only be fired once or twice. etc.

The "all else being equal" including the individual assumes that the person can shoot either caliber equally as well. It assumes that the person WILL hit the same spot with either caliber no matter how many times they pull the trigger on each.

Me? I have shot a few pistols, and I settled on a comfort level with a .32. I can hit something with it, easier to conceal, easier to manuever in close quarters, I can fire it off multiple times without my ears ringing for the next hour, the muzzle flash is tolerable, and I will carry it everywhere. I also carry a 9mm most of the time, but if its 7/10 days with the 9mm, Its 9/10 with the .32 and on the tenth day it is probably a .25acp (gasp!)

And that's perfectly acceptable because life is always about compromise.

If that's what you are comfortable with then good for you. I'm not criticizing any individual person's choice in a carry gun.

Good info, thanks for posting. I have been telling friends for years there is no significant difference between 9mm and .40 in a defensive situation and this will help my argument.

9mm Ballistics Chart | Ballistics 101

From the above website we see that the "typical" 9mm has ~350FP of muzzle energy traveling at around 1180fps. Assuming a 50% expansion, the final bullet diameter will be .531 inches which results in a frontal surface area of .22 sq. in.

40 Caliber Smith & Wesson Ballistics Chart | Ballistics 101

From the above site we see that the "typical" .40S&W has ~450FP of muzzle energy traveling at around the same speed. Again assuming a 50% expansion, the final bullet diameter will be .6 inches which results in a frontal surface area of .28 sq. in.

So the .40 has (on average) 28% more muzzle energy giving a much larger wound expansion channel & better penetration. It also makes a 30% bigger hole inside the person so it has a higher probability of hitting something vital if the shot was "close" (i.e. if the 9mm was .27 inches away from a major artery it would miss it while the .40 would hit it).

I don't see how you can say that there is "no significant difference" between the two.



If you got a 30% pay raise I bet you'd think that was "significant".

 

[crispy]

If that's what you are comfortable with then good for you. I'm not criticizing any individual person's choice in a carry gun.

If rolling your eyes isn't criticizing, what is it?

 

[finity]

If rolling your eyes isn't criticizing, what is it?

It's not criticizing his choice of carry gun because, as far as I know, he didn't mention WHAT his carry gun was. He stated that he "argues" with his friends that there is no real difference in effectiveness between the 9mm & .40S&W.

THAT is what I was rolling my eyes at. And I think the reasons for that eye roll are fairly obvious since they've been discussed at length in this thread.

I honestly don't care what gun someone carries. If they are happy with it then that's great. I just don't want someone making the decision to go with a .22LR for defending their lives based on the incorrect information that it's "just as good as the .45ACP because they "heard it INGO".

To me that is a great injustice to that person who may not have any idea of the thought processes or background that go into making that important decision. We all know about the gun-store "common knowledge" that gets passed off as "fact" even if it isn't anywhere close to being based on reality.

At worst, I guess I was MAYBE criticizing his REASON for carrying what he does. If he, in fact, does carry an inferior cartridge. For all I know he could be carrying a .500S&W revolver.

ETA:

So do you argue that there is no "real difference" between the .500S&W & the .22LR as the subject study seems to imply? Or at least what some people WANT it to imply?

 

[crispy]

So do you argue that there is no "real difference" between the .500S&W & the .22LR as the subject study seems to imply? Or at least what some people WANT it to imply?

NOBODY has ever argued that a .22LR bullet creates the same tissue damage if it hits the same spot as a .45 ACP bullet. Which is the point you keep trying to shove down our throats.

The study showed that people stop when they get shot. Whether that be a .380 or a .45. Whether that be because their body stops functioning or maybe they just crapped their pants.

I've seen a thousand videos on TV and youtube. The bad guys are dumb thug hoodlums 90% of the time. They run away when a Chihuahua attacks them. They're certainly not going to stand there and take my .380 rounds to their center of mass.

I've yet to see one video of a meth crazed zombie that just keeps coming until a .45 takes its head off.

 

[Double T]

IMHO the best is one that doesn't over penetrate and transfers the most energy in a person before coming to rest. I would think that a high speed low weight bullet would cut through like a knife into butter not transferring much energy because of decreased "friction" in correlation to smaller nose diameter...

On the same token, if the bullet Nose diameter is larger, and the bullet weighs more and is traveling at 3/4 bullet As speed, then more energy will be transferred and the wound channel will be more profound.

As a nurse, I would tend to think that while pass through shots would cause exanguination quicker...you also have twice the chance of clotting and collateral damage. More energy transfer FTW.

Regardless though, if you can't hit a basketball with it at 20 feet you might as well shoot yourself in the leg

 

[finity]

NOBODY has ever argued that a .22LR bullet creates the same tissue damage if it hits the same spot as a .45 ACP bullet. Which is the point you keep trying to shove down our throats.

Good. Now we both agree that caliber does matter.

The study showed that people stop when they get shot. Whether that be a .380 or a .45. Whether that be because their body stops functioning or maybe they just crapped their pants.

I've seen a thousand videos on TV and youtube. The bad guys are dumb thug hoodlums 90% of the time. They run away when a Chihuahua attacks them. They're certainly not going to stand there and take my .380 rounds to their center of mass.

I've yet to see one video of a meth crazed zombie that just keeps coming until a .45 takes its head off.

My argument goes to the "10%" that was implied by your "90%" statistic.

We never really know when that 10% will happen. At those times you NEED a cartridge that will have a higher probability to PHYSICALLY stop your attacker. That conclusion was not supported by the "study" that came to IT'S own conclusion as being (paraphrased) "carry what you want because caliber doesn't matter". CALIBER ABSOLUTELY MATTERS! It matters in those instances where you have a determined attacker who won't give up PSYCHOLOGICALLY as soon as they are shot the first time. If you don't believe that those situations do actually exist because you've "never seen a video" then you aren't looking in the right places for your information.

If, after all of the evidence is taken into account, you still decide that a .22LR is the right choice for YOU then there is no argument. But don't make that decision on flawed reasoning based on a "study" that concludes something completely in opposition to reality (i.e. that caliber doesn't matter).

If I (& others) wouldn't have made the point that the "study" really isn't the last word on the subject with it at least giving the implication that you should just carry whatever caliber you want based on that study (& supported by many of the original posters in this thread) then what do you think someone who is looking to INGO to learn enough about what choices to make in a DEFENSIVE firearm would come away with? "Well, I guess people seem to agree that the caliber doesn't matter. A .22 will stop someone just as effectively as a .45. I might as well save the money & discomfort of carrying the .45 & buy the .22 since CALIBER DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY."

I agree (& I think I've said this previously here - or maybe in the other thread on the same study) that MOST BG's will stop after getting shot by ANY gun. I also agree that many (most?) BG's will also stop when simply presented with your defensive firearm without you even firing a shot (as supported by Kleck's study) but does that mean I would recommend, based on THAT study, to save money & not buy ANY bullets since the majority of the time YOU WON'T EVEN NEED THEM? I bet you would find that advice laughable as would ANYONE who has ANY knowledge of defensive handgun use. So why would you support a study that says it doesn't matter what caliber you carry because MOST (not ALL) BG's will stop attacking as soon as they are shot with ANYTHING? I honestly don't see the difference.

As I've said before in many other threads:

Carry what you feel comfortable with. If you can comfortably carry a .50AE Desert Eagle with 5 extra mags because you really think you may need them, go ahead (though I still reserve the right to think it's silly if you do barring any extraordinary situation). MY PERSONAL BELIEF & comfort level says that I'll be OK with carrying a widely accepted moderate defensive round (9mm) with only one mag of 10 rounds as my acceptable load. Sometimes I carry more but almost never less (unless I'm at work or some other NPE). But at least I've come to that conclusion taking many different facts into consideration. If, after taking into account all of the same facts, you have decided that a .380 is adequate for your situation then go ahead and carry the .380. I personally wouldn't recommend it but that's your choice. I'm sure there are some who would think that I was "undergunned" for only carrying 10 rounds of 9mm, too, but I'm OK with that.

Don't fall into the trap of supporting a flawed study based on the fact that it supports your decision to carry what many feel is at the bottom limit (or below) of being an adequate self-defense round while ignoring all of the rest of the evidence to the contrary.

 

[finity]

IMHO the best is one that doesn't over penetrate and transfers the most energy in a person before coming to rest. I would think that a high speed low weight bullet would cut through like a knife into butter not transferring much energy because of decreased "friction" in correlation to smaller nose diameter...

On the same token, if the bullet Nose diameter is larger, and the bullet weighs more and is traveling at 3/4 bullet As speed, then more energy will be transferred and the wound channel will be more profound.

As a nurse, I would tend to think that while pass through shots would cause exanguination quicker...you also have twice the chance of clotting and collateral damage. More energy transfer FTW.

Regardless though, if you can't hit a basketball with it at 20 feet you might as well shoot yourself in the leg

My personal thoughts on energy deposition is that it really doesn't matter how much energy is retained IN the body by the bullet being stopped inside but the amount of damage that is done by the bullet as it passes THROUGH the body. That is also a function of bullet energy but isn't necessarily reliant on the bullet stopping in them.

THEORETICALLY, you could have a higher energy projectile that dumps all of its energy in a wide area (say on the skin) but doesn't penetrate at all (like beabag shotgun rounds) so is likely not lethal whereas a less energetic round that passes through but disrupts more tissue in its path will be more likely to kill the person.

I know from my deer hunting experience that a bullet that reliably expands & passes through the deers body causes a faster bleed rate with a twice as likely chance to NOT clot (or have other bodily tissues clog the hole to prevent bleeding) as a single entrance (but no exit) wound would have.

I shot a deer a couple of years ago with an arrow (lower energy projectile) that didn't get good penetration (didn't pass through) & I tracked the deer a half mile before I lost it in a swamp. The blood trail was massive at first but it suddenly almost completely stopped & I was on my hands & knees looking for drops every 10 -15 feet. At the entrance to the swamp as the deer passed through some saplings I found a couple of chunks of flesh that looked like lung tissue. The only thing I can think is that the wound was closed up by the arrow & the lung preventing bleeding out before he made it too far for me to adequately track him. By contrast, every deer I've shot with a bullet (higher energy projectile) that has passed completely through I've recovered & was able to fairly easily track if I had to track it at all.

I do agree though that pass through does pose a higher risk of injury to people by the exiting bullet but I don't have a good idea on how much damage a bullet could do that has already expended MOST of it's energy in someone else. Obviously that would be dependant on where you hit the first person and how much energy they absorbed before exiting. I would think that a COM hit with a hollow point bullet expending upwards of 80% of it's energy in the first person wouldn't do much damage to a second person. Like I said though, that's just my gut feeling.

 

[crispy]

Don't fall into the trap of supporting a flawed study based on the fact that it supports your decision to carry what many feel is at the bottom limit (or below) of being an adequate self-defense round while ignoring all of the rest of the evidence to the contrary.

Again, the study is not "flawed". The study is a compilation of real life data.

Unless you can show that he lied while collecting the data, the numbers in the tables are what they are.

You seem to have the problem because it doesn't support your decision that bigger is always light years better than smaller.

Instead as caliber goes up, there is a marginal improvement in "stopping power". About what I would expect. But not what the "big caliber people" like to portray...

 

[kingnereli]

Again, the study is not "flawed". The study is a compilation of real life data.

Unless you can show that he lied while collecting the data, the numbers in the tables are what they are.

You seem to have the problem because it doesn't support your decision that bigger is always light years better than smaller.

Instead as caliber goes up, there is a marginal improvement in "stopping power". About what I would expect. But not what the "big caliber people" like to portray...

The problem is not that he lied but that there is not enough data, there is no note of bullet type and that psychological stops are factored in as an aspect of stopping power. When a person doing a study questions some of his own results it is laughable to not only take it seriously at all but to defend it so ardently. It's junk.

If you are going to work with percentages the data points have to huge and as even as possible.

Psychological stops are not caliber specific and have no place in a discussion of wound effectiveness. The caliber debate has to be reduced to what best renders an attacker physically unable to continue the attack. It's also foolish to rely on them to win you a gunfight. Yes, it happens but you put yourself at a disadvantage if you assume an attacker is going to stop just because you get a hit with any caliber at all.

The author is able to admit flaws in his own study. Why can't you?

 

[crispy]

He collected data for ten years. Why don't you go gather more data? Oh that's right, you don't have any...

It was NEVER a discussion of wound effectiveness. NEVER.

You guys are attacking collected data. That is just plain stupid.

 

[NIFT]

For anyone, here, interested in really learning about terminal ballistics, the following are excellent reads:

Terminal Ballistic Information - M4Carbine.net Forums (first 25 "sticky" threads)
Wound Ballistics, Ballistic Injury, Stopping Power, Gunshot Wounds
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf (the seminal work)
Book Review: Handgun Stopping Power - The Definitive Study (exposes fallacies of Marshall & Sanow)
Book Review: Street Stoppers (more on Marshall & Sanow BS)
http://www.mdtstraining.com/Wound_Ballistics_101.pdf (Page 7 begins discussion of shooting incident analysis)
Best Choices for Self Defense Ammo (excellent compilation of terminal ballistics information)
http://catm.com/yabbfiles/Attachmen...it_Ballistic_Research_Facility_FBIAcademy.pdf

 

[CarmelHP]

Shot placement really matters

Exactly. Does caliber matter? Yes, to an extent, but it's not the single greatest predictor of effectiveness. Shot placement is. Carry the modern center-fire round that you shoot best and that is probably the most effective.