FBI STATS 380 vs 9mm vs 357 vs 40 vs 45


PDA






Kachok
December 15, 2010, 02:09 AM
There has been alot of myths about the stoping power of different handgun bullets, some people put all their faith in high speed "Hydrostatic shock" while others think that the caliber and mass of the bullet are the only thing that matters, how do we sort out fact from fiction? What better place to start then the statistics kept by the FBI. Here are a few examples of performance of different bullets. ATI=Average incapacitation time. This is an estamated number based on their formula of shock and blood loss. All of these were among the top performers in their respective calibers.
exp pen shock one shot stop ATI
Cor-Bon JHP +P 90 0.58 9.0in 467psi 70.0% 10.2 sec 380acp
Cor-Bon JHP 115gr 0.55in 14.2in 626psi 90.6% 8.8 sec 9mm
Federal Classic 125 0.65 12.0in 1487psi 95.8% 5.7 sec 357 mag
Remington Golden Saber0.68 12.0in 771psi 93.8% 7.9 sec 40 S&W
Cor-Bon JHP 185 0.7 11.3in 920psi 91.7% 7.2 sec 45 ACP

What does this tell us, well first of all the puney little 380 is far from worthless seeing as 70% of the time one shot was all it took.
Although the 45 did beat the 9mm in one shot stop ratio the margin was so slim that it is hardly noticable.
The myth on larger bullets always being more effective is busted here as the 357 magnum (9.1mm) has a higher one shot % and a faster ATI then any of the larger bores.
The choice of bullets seem to have more of an effect on performance then the choice of caliber as each had good and poor performers.
Other things start becoming more noticeable when comparing these charts in detail. The rapid opening shallow penatrating "shock" bullets tend to have a faster ATI but a lower one shot % then slower, heavier, deeper penatrating bullets that seem to be a more consistant performer. The FBI's 115gr silver tips that gave the 9mm such a bad reputation after the Miami shootout had very poor performance stats, they only had 8 inches of penatration and ranked amongst the lowest of any 9mm round.
I hope this will reduce some of the caliber bashing going on around here.

If you enjoyed reading about "FBI STATS 380 vs 9mm vs 357 vs 40 vs 45" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
lloveless
December 15, 2010, 02:18 AM
How many grs. was that .40 S&W bullet? If a .380 is 70% effective at a one stop shot shooting them twice should make it 100% effective? Also can you give your source url please.
ll

Shadow 7D
December 15, 2010, 02:21 AM
POST YOUR SOURCE
after Marshall and Sanow
you need to give the source, claiming 'FBI'

is just some guy on the internet spouting stuff...

Geckgo
December 15, 2010, 02:30 AM
I wish I knew the web address but I'm sure anyone can find it with google and a little time. I recently read a PDF file of a report supposedly published by the FBI as a source for LE caliber selection. The end findings in the report?

1. Bullet placement - Hit something vital, only brain shots and spine shots are 100% effective.

2. Penetration - 12" through flesh and bone will still allow the bullet to reach the heart and other vital areas even if the suspect is turned at a less than optimal angle.

3. Hole size, the bigger the hole, the more likely the suspect is to lose blood pressure and pass out faster.

They went on to say as well to ignor the effects of hydrostatic shock in handgun calibers and made some interesting points about one-shot-stops in regards to psychology. This is all heresay of course because I don't have a link, but if you are good with google you should be able to find the document, It's public info.

I thought it was funny that they also reccomended that agents keep firing until the suspect is down, and if he/she gets back up, resume firing. Document could have been fake but it was definitely interesting.

Shadow 7D
December 15, 2010, 02:57 AM
OH, well, like you say, and many here repeat what you are saying, but then again, I lack the documents to back myself, and don't feel like digging the up right now either

hey went on to say as well to ignor the effects of hydrostatic shock in handgun calibers and made some interesting points about one-shot-stops in regards to psychology

This is what I question about the OPs post, claiming to have a math answer for what is at best, a very difficult if not impossible problem to quantify, every shot is it's own data set, and how it is made and compiled with 'other shots' is what leads me to question this,

Beside, how many people are only shot once by the police, their training is to shoot until the threat is stopped. That doesn't sound like one round.

Kachok
December 15, 2010, 03:04 AM
There were several sources listed one was street stopers, others were
21.^ a b From model in Courtney A, Courtney M: Links between traumatic brain injury and ballistic pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities. Brain Injury 21(7): 657–662, 2007.
I found the information on wiki
24.^ Estimated from model in Courtney and Courtney http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0701266
I have been told that this is the information compiled by the FBI although I cannot confirm that.

HK-Freak
December 15, 2010, 03:12 AM
Per Massad Ayoob: It is impossible to quantify stopping power. There's no national data base that provides enough detail about police shootings to even begin to evaluate them fairly. FBI statistics do not ask if the persons being shot were male or female? Young or old? Big or small? Jacked up on amphetamines or completely sober? Were they shot from the front while charging towards the shooter or shot in the back while running away? Was he a tough guy or was he a <push-over>? Etc...

There's simply too many variables to be able to look at a piece of paper and say "yep this will stop someone, and this won't."

Kachok
December 15, 2010, 03:19 AM
The same principals apply to hunting bullets as well, while larger calibers do make bigger entry holes that has little berring on damage to the vials, I have seen a 6.5mm bullet pulvarize the entire chest cavity of a deer. I have also seen ballistics gel tests where a .30 cal bullet leaves a would canal 9"+ wide that split three sides of the gel block! While speed is not the be all end all of tissue damage it certainly has somthing to do with terminal ballistics. That said there is nothing more consistant then a large caliber heavy projectile because it depends less on expansion and if there was a bullet structural failure it still has more momentum to drive the fragments deeper.

oldfool
December 15, 2010, 03:34 AM
same old same old woobie wars
some will believe it because they want to
some will disbelieve it because they want to

most oldtimers will just yawn and say, "yup"...
it's tuff to beat 357 in a revolver or 45 acp in an autoloader
it ain't your grandaddy's 9mm no more
and 380acp ain't no spitball
(and them newfangled 40s tend to fall in between 9s and 45s, who ever woulda' thunk it)

Holo
December 15, 2010, 04:16 AM
i remember reading what hes talking about. The psycological part of it was a different angle to think about. A lot of people once shot go through a "omg omg omg i'm going to die" panic once shot and that can stop the threat immediately as well.

Ill try and dig up the link to it. It was in a 9mm vs .45 thread.

edit: found it http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

harmon rabb
December 15, 2010, 07:22 AM
it's tuff to beat 357 in a revolver or 45 acp in an autoloader
it ain't your grandaddy's 9mm no more
and 380acp ain't no spitball

hah, that about sums it up :D

Shadow 7D
December 15, 2010, 07:36 AM
Oh yep you can
Hell they are cooking up .480 and even a, whoop whoop, .500 in them spinny guns now

As for the autos, well lets not forget the widely/automag in .45 really big and FAST, and then there is the 50 DE, but even a .32 isn't a spit ball (we can leave that to a .25) and in the end they get the job done, mostly.

vaherder
December 15, 2010, 08:12 AM
Why would anyone believe any info put out by an agency as incompetent as the FBI? Man they get lost going to the head in their own office building.

Va herder

easyg
December 15, 2010, 09:35 AM
What does this tell us, well first of all the puney little 380 is far from worthless seeing as 70% of the time one shot was all it took.
And yet no police agency in the USA issues or recommends a .380 as a service pistol, including the FBI.
The Feds carry Glocks in .40 caliber.

JohnBT
December 15, 2010, 10:03 AM
They wear suits too, but I'm not going to do that either. :D

Geckgo
December 15, 2010, 10:16 AM
Thank you Holo, that was the one exactly. To anyone that uses a .380, it really ain't a spitball. When someone is trying to kill you (unlike a police shootout) they are usually very close and facing you, so with 2 or 3 inches of penetration through the ribcage you will hit the heart and a decent .380 hollowpoint will expand and make a nice, big, hole. If you want the 12 inches of penetration, usually you will need fmj though.

By the same logic described in that the paper I refered to (That Holo found a link to, thanks again), my 10/22 loaded up with a standard mag of 10 velociters (The 25 rnd mags aint working 100% for me yet) should do the trick also. And it has the advantage of looking like an assault rifle when it's dark inside to someone who doesn't know a lot about guns. Not reccommending this either, but there are people who may only own a .22 for plinking and when your house gets busted into, you need to grab what you got before you duck behind the bed.

Fastcast
December 15, 2010, 10:17 AM
And yet no police agency in the USA issues or recommends a .380 as a service pistol, including the FBI.
The Feds carry Glocks in .40 caliber.

The concept of offensive vs defensive weapons & caliber still eludes so many. :rolleyes:

Well placed shots of .380 are surely capable as a defensive caliber and misplaced shots of any caliber are, well, misplaced and not so effective.....Any volunteers who doubt such logic should step forth and prove their argument valid.....Take one for the team. ;)

railroader
December 15, 2010, 10:33 AM
This sure sounds alot like the "strasberg goat tests". Supposedly goats were shot through the lungs to test the effectiveness of different ammo. After they were shot the amount of time it took for the goat to go down was recorded. Then the one shot stop effectiveness was figured out. This was going around in the 90s. Do a search on it. Mark

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701267.pdf

easyg
December 15, 2010, 10:46 AM
The concept of offensive vs defensive weapons & caliber still eludes so many.
Considering that the best defense is a good offense, I wouldn't own a handgun that wasn't capable of both.
I can't see why anyone would.


Well placed shots of .380 are surely capable as a defensive caliber and misplaced shots of any caliber are, well, misplaced and not so effective.....Any volunteers who doubt such logic should step forth and prove their argument valid.....Take one for the team.
Ah yes, the tired old argument that if a given caliber is even remotely able to stop a human aggressor then it must be a good self defense caliber.

A 22. short can kill a man.
And I wouldn't volunteer to get shot with one.
But that doesn't mean that the .22 short is a good caliber for self-defense.

If a person can shoot a .380 accurately, then they will have no trouble shooting a 9mm Para accurately.
And since there are plenty of small 9mm handguns around, many just as small as the typical .380 handgun, there's really no good reason to carry a .380 pistol.



Easy

Fastcast
December 15, 2010, 11:01 AM
And since there are plenty of small 9mm handguns around, many just as small as the typical .380 handgun, there's really no good reason to carry a .380 pistol.

No there's not "many" 9mm as small as .380s but one very expensive one comes to mind.....The "good reason" is, confident in their ability (more than hair splitting calibers) free men do as they will, not as others tell them to. :neener:

Funny thing is I know several LEOs who carry only a P3AT or LCP when off duty.....Hmmmm

herkyguy
December 15, 2010, 11:10 AM
The psychological effect is not quantifiable. You could argue that a large Ruger Single Six would intimidate a BG more than a pocket .380 based on appearance if the BG doesn't know much about guns. It may be safest to stick with numbers. Even then it's up for debate. Carry what you're comfortable with in terms of both caliber and pistol. 'nuff said.

ForumSurfer
December 15, 2010, 11:29 AM
The stats mean very little to me. There are so many variables in each shooting, that it just makes it hard to get a good overall picture. It's like saying ford trucks kill pedestrians better than dodges.

Bottom line for me is this. Yes, a 380 will stop an attacker. But it isn't a great performing round. I'd rely on one if it was all I had and I felt confident enough to shoot ragged holes or 1" patterns out to 15 yards. Let's face it, shot placement is key with a smaller round. Pocket 380's usually have a small number of rounds, so I would need to be supremely confident in my ability to draw and fire the few small rounds I had. I won't stand in front of anyone and let them test their 380, either. I know it will stop and kill effectively if you place your shots correctly. So will a 22. Luckily, the 22 (cci stinger) that I was shot with had poor shot placement.

As far as 9mm, 40, 357 SIG, 357 and 45 go...well that's a dead horse. They have been proven to stop an attacker with shot placement. They have been proven not to stop an attacker with poor shot placement. I'll gladly carry any of those with good ammo in a package that I shoot effectively with.

GunTech
December 15, 2010, 11:30 AM
'Stop' is a hard thing to quantify in any case. So much is subjective, and the data is often based on what the shooter/victim recalls or reports.

There are many studies of lethality, based on statistics collected by hospitals, and while the relationship between 'stops' and lethality is tenuous at best, lethality depended primarily on bullet placement, and the major factor effecting this was number of times shot (thus increasing the probability that something important is hit).

So, the whole idea of the one shot stop is flawed from the outset. Multiple rounds into the target, increasing the chance of a strike to a vital region, is probably far more important than what cartridge you carry. Shoot until they stop or fall down. There is no magic bullet.

Fastcast
December 15, 2010, 11:35 AM
So, the whole idea of the one shot stop is flawed from the outset. Multiple rounds into the target, increasing the chance of a strike to a vital region, is probably far more important than what cartridge you carry. Shoot until they stop or fall down. There is no magic bullet.

Well said!

rbernie
December 15, 2010, 11:50 AM
Estimated from model A few key words, at least to my eyes, WRT the notion of ATI.

'Stop' is a hard thing to quantify in any case. So much is subjective, and the data is often based on what the shooter/victim recalls or reports.
Absolutely. The M&S 'one shot stop' stats have been widely debated here and elsewhere due to the method in which the stats were collected and both what they show and do not show. Rather than reengage in that debate, I would recommend a forum search here for anyone interested in the topic.

In the end, I believe that anyone planning to respond to deadly force or the threat of deadly force with but a single shot needs to rethink their plan, and anyone planning on a magic bullet or chambering providing a tactically significant advantage really had better hope that they never have to test their theory. :)

DT Guy
December 15, 2010, 12:07 PM
How is the FBI collecting data on how long it took someone to stop? Gunfights with stopwatches? I'm curious about this methodology-

Larry

Geckgo
December 15, 2010, 12:18 PM
According to the paper on the link, from what I remember reading it they admit that they cannot collect enough appropriate data for a formal evaluation, so they resort to ballistics gel to tell them what they think is important, mainly that the bullet can penetrate far enough to reach the heart when fired from any likely angle. If you shoot someone through their foot in an attempt to reach their heart you will fail, even with most rifles and fmj ammo.

Aparently they try to determine how long it will take for blood pressure to drop after being hit in a vital area, heart, lungs, major arteries, etc. Bigger bullets and more holes also allow for more blood to flow.

Kachok
December 15, 2010, 12:23 PM
I have always thought of the 380 to be a better pocket gun caliber then the 32 ACP or the 25 ACP. More mass, more kenetic energy, and a larger caliber, I don't think anyone would argue that point. Now a 9mm vs a 380 in a pocket gun is a bit more of a matchup, Kal-Tech makes a compact 12 oz 9mm and an even smaller 8oz 380. For full frame guns the 9mm would be the obvious choice.

Shadow 7D
December 15, 2010, 03:54 PM
Rbernie, where is my pic of that ol 30mm derringer when I need it.
damn cant find it
here is a 20mm
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=469914

fastbolt
December 15, 2010, 04:45 PM
I was given a copy of Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness, by SA Patrick, back when it was still a new document and I was in a firearms instructor class where the FBI participated. It's still a good read.

This later document, One-Shot Drops Surviving the Myth, by Anthony J. Pinizzotto, Ph.D., Harry A Kern, M.Ed., and Edward F. Davis, M.S. is also interesting: http://www.rrmemphis.com/myth.pdf

The alleged goat-roping tests have never been publicly confirmed, and as I recall, at least one government agency reportedly invested some effort in attempting to confirm whether they had actually occurred, without success. Other folks seem to prefer to postulate that these were "secret tests" which had to remain hidden due to various concerns and interests. They may as well have been conducted at the same time as the alleged saucer recovery in Roswell.

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 15, 2010, 05:14 PM
A friend of a friend had to shoot a drunk guy breaking into his house looking to vote 4 times and he was still able to jump ontop and knock down the guy before dying. It was a .380.

JR47
December 15, 2010, 07:00 PM
If a person can shoot a .380 accurately, then they will have no trouble shooting a 9mm Para accurately.
And since there are plenty of small 9mm handguns around, many just as small as the typical .380 handgun, there's really no good reason to carry a .380 pistol.

You can add to that the same discussion about the 9mm vs. the .45 ACP. While there have been no duty .380 cal weapons used by the Police, many, such as the Indiana State Police, issued Beretta Model 84s as "off-duty" guns. Most other PDs also allow at least some .380 ACP weapons for "off duty" carry. Then again, the Germans used the .380 and .32 ACP for police DUTY use, along with much of Europe, into the 1970s, without complaint. The Italians used the .380 ACP Beretta Model 1934 in .380 ACP for their Army issue pistol, and the .32 ACP for the Navy. While they didn't do too well against the Allies, they seemed to work pretty well against the Ethiopians.

It's always amusing to watch how the bigger is better theorum always seems to stop at the posters favorite cartridge.

SharpsDressedMan
December 15, 2010, 07:28 PM
"Per Massad Ayoob: It is impossible to quantify stopping power" :) I'm smiling because it sure took the "experts" a long time to accept that. I always thought it was an exercise in futility because there are just too many variables.

Geckgo
December 15, 2010, 08:20 PM
I carry a .45 ACP, but tend to reccomend to 9mm as "big enough." A friend of mine has a .22 lr and a pellet gun. Told him to get some velocitors for the .22, just to be on the safe side :)

oldfool
December 16, 2010, 09:25 AM
post #23 is worth reading twice or thrice

If feel better w/ bigger, go bigger; if 380acp is too girly for you, don't carry one, nobody ever said different
All "threats" are not created equal and gun forum folk will never agree on what defensive vs. offensive mindset is

As for some of us who are confident enough to be comfortable with 380acp, be happy it's me/we, not you. But I never could fully relate to those who are hardcore about bigger is better, and tout such as compact 9s over 380s for CCW. "Everybody" agrees that where you throw those rounds far outweighs everything else, and when it comes to that, nothing beats justified confidence in how well you can shoot what you carry.

Always makes me wonder a little bit why the anti-380 folks who go with 9s don't go with 40s, why the 40s folks don't go with 45s, why the 45 guys don't go with 454 Casul or 480 or 500... if bigger is what counts, and your life threatening threat assessment is that high, why NOT go bigger ? Carry comfort too important to go go big ?

Betting on one shot out of any handgun to instantly kill is a fool's bet, including Dirty Harry 44 mag (special). Those stop "studies" just really don't mean all that much real world. Real world civilian SD shootings result in a one shot "stop" reasonably often, no matter the caliber (not nearly so often as no shot "stops"), but very infrequently result in QUICK one shot kills or adeqate physical incapacitation, even if BG stumbles off and bleeds out elsewhere. You don't ever want to go up against drug crazed 300# machete man at 7 yards and closing fast with any handgun caliber; easy 90%+ odds they will put your head in a small plastic bag after, even if they need a full size body bag for him. True CNS hits that quick are as much a matter of luck as skill in that wild eyed scenario.

"Shootability" counts more than caliber... or as someone here might say, practice, practice, practice... and do it with something you are prone to shoot naturally well to begin with. Don't anger Mafia bosses and leave ol' Grizz alone.
I also suspect too many think 380s come only in LCP sizes, and/or "full size" 380s are big-n-bulky; not so, but they sure can be highly shootable. YSMV

Having said all that, sure they do make "bigger", but....
it's tuff to beat 357 in a revolver or 45 acp in an autoloader
(preferably full size ones)
always was, still is, no big mystery about it

easyg
December 16, 2010, 12:06 PM
Then again, the Germans used the .380 and .32 ACP for police DUTY use, along with much of Europe, into the 1970s, without complaint. The Italians used the .380 ACP Beretta Model 1934 in .380 ACP for their Army issue pistol, and the .32 ACP for the Navy.
Clearly the Germans and Italians , and much of Europe, were not satisfied with the .380 or the .32, because none are carrying those calibers today.

easyg
December 16, 2010, 12:16 PM
Always makes me wonder a little bit why the anti-380 folks who go with 9s don't go with 40s, why the 40s folks don't go with 45s, why the 45 guys don't go with 454 Casul or 480 or 500... if bigger is what counts, and your life threatening threat assessment is that high, why NOT go bigger ? Carry comfort too important to go go big ?
Why a .40 instead of a .45?

Capacity and gun size.

I love the .45, but you can only get so many .45 rounds in a small handgun.
If you cram a lot of .45 rounds in to a handgun it quickly becomes too large and bulky for concealed carry.
Since I don't believe in "one shot stops" I'm not satisfied with just 6 .45 rounds in the magazine.

Besides, the difference in effectiveness between a .40 and a .45 is practically insignificant.
But the difference in effectiveness between the .380 and the 9mm para is quite significant.
The .380 just isn't a great self-defense caliber.
It's regulated to the "better than nothing" category IMO.

Geckgo
December 16, 2010, 12:35 PM
The more that I learn about bullets and shooting the more my mind shifts towards the "anything bigger than .20 inches, except don't use a .25ACP ever, for anything, even beer cans, sorry, I'm straying a bit". I like .177 and .22 cal pellets for hunting wabbits, my .22 velociters for any game up to large foxes/small wolves. A wolf torso is similar to a human torso, just turned sideways a bit. My only complaints with a person who uses .22 for SD is handguns and cheap bullets. The .22 handgun IMHO is only really good for two things and self defense isn't one of them.

.32s and .38s and .380s, oldfool, like many I never see them in larger guns with a decent sight radius. My main problem with these nowadays is that they are little, have filed down sights, and there is nowhere for my pinky to go! If I saw a larger .380, then I would probably still go with 9mm. Just sound right and the bullets are cheap, and they make lots of different rounds that have to compete with eachother.

It took me a while and weeks of reading up on the topic, learning more about ballistics (In school we didn't get into to many details when it came to ballistics), how bullets fly, how they react in viscus mediums. Fun stuff. The more I learn the less I care about caliber.

4x4given
December 16, 2010, 02:07 PM
I would suggest that this will provide a one shot stop. Pretty quickly too.

http://www.hgandainc.com/artwork/Barrett%20M82A1-400.jpg

sorry, couldn't resist it. :)

RC20
December 16, 2010, 03:35 PM
Well, so much for ending the caliber wars.

Reality is you should carry what you are comfortable with or works for you or you like.

Exact figures don't mean much, but all the data published suggests 9mm is plenty good. It does have the single most major jump over any caliber. Still 380 is no slouch.

The group 9mm and on up is so close as to be non issue statistically (yes it can make a difference on the macro level).

Years back we had a gun fight between two troopers and a nut case. Nutcase was filled with something like 4 or 5 .357, and 6 or 8 9mm. The 9mm killed him only because it cut one of the major heart blood vessels (aorta?).

Once you get to a certain point its about shot placement or enough rounds that you get a statistical kill.

GunTech
December 16, 2010, 10:19 PM
If you are looking at an SD gun, IMO the most important fact is 'will you carry it?' Because you'll probably need it when you don't expect to and that means you need to carry all the time. If we knew we were going into harms way, most of us would probably choose a rifle.

The carry gun has to be reliable, because if something is likely to go wrong, it will invariably happen at the worst possible moment.

It has to be accurate enough to hit a torso sized target at 20 feet or so and that's all. When the adrenaline is pumping, fine motor control goes right out the window.

Finally, it has to have enough power to make it to something vital or incapacitating. Plan on being able to shoot through a lot of adipose tissue (fat) because we live in an overweight society.

Have enough rounds so that if one, two or three don't do it, you still have options. Five or six is usually enough, but 15 is better. It's well and good to speak of accuracy, but chances are you're rattled, disoriented and possibly injured before the gunfight even starts. Play the odds.

Better a 25 auto in your pocket than a 45 in your gun safe.

sxcamaro05
December 17, 2010, 01:55 AM
Like the other thread (9mm vs 40) it is and always will be whatever you shoot best with. Heck I like .40 and the next guy like 9mm and some other person may like .38. Does that mean that only one of us is right in our selection? No. It means we all have our choices based on our selections. Now please back on topic with the tests in the FBI paper.

Shadow 7D
December 17, 2010, 07:09 AM
Actually, I thought that we had already debunked that this paper has anything to do with the FBI

bds
December 17, 2010, 11:59 AM
As posted, most 380Auto pistols come with short barrels.

When I look at ballistics data, I take into consideration that most of velocity data come from 4"+ fullsize barrels and not shorter subcompact barrel lengths that most of us carry and will be using for SD. With decreased velocity from shorter barrels, terminal impact is further decreased from published. As many posted, I am in agreement with the importance of shot placement.

Over the years, I got to talk to various SD/PD, EMT and ER staff who dealt with actual gun shot wounds. Shot placement was a critical factor of damaging vascular organs/vessels that led to fatality. For most COM shots, general consensus tended to be that 44Mag/357Mag shootings rarely survive and often are dead on scene or on arrival to ER. 45ACP/40S&W shootings are often fatal depending on the type of bullets used (FMJ vs JHP). 9mm JHP shootings are survivable if transported to ER in time. 9mm/38Spl/380Auto FMJ shootings are often survivable and inflict the least amount of injuries.

For me, 40S&W 155/165 gr JHP is my choice of SD/HD round especially for the short barreled subcompact Glock27.

On pages 11 and 12 of Courtney M and Courtney A PDF, a listing of caliber and bullet data can be found. I pulled a sampling based on caliber, bullet weight, muzzle velocity, muzzle energy and average incapacitation times (AIT). Shot placement and terminal velocity/energy will affect the AIT, but the data for 380Auto JHP near the 9mm FMJ does not give me much confidence.

Caliber: Bullet
- Velocity (fps)
- Energy (ft-lbs)
- Average Incapacitation Times (seconds)
---------------------------------
357Mag: Fed125JHP
- 1442
- 577
- 7.44

40S&W: Win155ST
- 1210
- 504
- 7.86

10mm: Win175ST
- 1267
- 624
- 7.92

45ACP: Rem185JHP+P
- 1124
- 519
- 7.98

10mm: Fed180HS
- 995
- 396
- 8.22

40S&W: Fed180HS
- 991
- 393
- 8.32

45ACP: Fed230HS
- 847
- 366
- 8.40

9mm: Fed115JHP+P+
- 1311
- 439
- 8.90

9mm: Fed124HS+P+
- 1267
- 442
- 8.9

9mm: Fed124HS
- 1126
- 349
- 9.28

9mm: Fed115JHP
- 1175
- 353
- 9.30

9mm: Fed147HS
- 958
- 300
- 9.58

38Spl: Win158LHP+P
- 996
- 348
- 10.76

38Spl: Fed125JHP+P
- 998
- 276
- 10.92

380ACP: Fed90HS
- 1008
- 203
- 10.94

380ACP: Win85ST
- 980 - 181
- 12.88

9mm: Win115FMJ
- 1163 - 345
- 14.40

380ACP: Fed95FMJ
- 934
- 184
- 22.80

38Spl: Fed158RNL
- 708
- 176
- 33.68

Geckgo
December 17, 2010, 12:19 PM
bds, could you post a link to where you got those AITs or give some information on how they determined those numbers?

Fastcast
December 17, 2010, 12:33 PM
I mean really, who compiles these incapacitation times?.....Who's standing around with their stop watch?......Ok he's done - 8.23 seconds.

With that said, what I'm seeing is anywhere from 1-3 seconds difference from 9mm, .40, .45 & 10mm....to a quality .380 & 38spl.

With those numbers, if they're even believable, I'd say the disrespected, deserve a little more respect.....The gap doesn't appear near as big as the rhetoric. :what:

Water-Man
December 17, 2010, 12:40 PM
The .357mag appears to be the 'Perfect Storm' of handgun calibers. :)

Shawn Dodson
December 17, 2010, 12:46 PM
On pages 11 and 12 of Courtney M and Courtney A...

In regard to the papers authored by the Courtneys, a couple Pearls of Wisdom:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=411452&postcount=2
http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=411817&postcount=164

Links to the entire thread in which these comments were posted can be found at the upper right corner of the respective web pages.

bds
December 17, 2010, 12:51 PM
bds, could you post a link to where you got those AITs or give some information on how they determined those numbers?
Sure. They came from a paper written by Michael and Amy Courtney of Ballistics Testing Group (http://www.btgresearch.org/index.htm) in January of 2007 (rev Aug 2007). Here's the link to the PDF (http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0701267v2).

(pages 4-5) The average incapacitation times (AIT) were correlated with the following bullet parameters:

P1: peak pressure wave magnitude determined on the surface of a 1” diameter cylinder centered on the wound channel.
E: Kinetic energy of the bullet.
TSC: Temporary stretch cavity volume.
V: Bullet velocity.
MV: Bullet momentum (mass times velocity).
VPCC: Permanent crush cavity volume estimated via FBI method.
VPCC : Truncated permanent crush cavity volume estimated via FBI method truncated at 12” of penetration.
APCC: Permanent crush cavity surface area estimated via FBI method.
APCC : Permanent surface area estimated via FBI method truncated at 12” of penetration.

These results show that AIT correlates most strongly with peak pressure wave magnitude, but also shows significant correlation with energy, velocity, and temporary cavity volume.

Here a link to other papers they wrote on ballistics - http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+courtney+AND+amy+AND+michael+courtney/0/1/0/all/0/1

bds
December 17, 2010, 01:12 PM
In regard to the papers authored by the Courtneys, a couple Pearls of Wisdom
Shawn, most of us who lack the first hand experience of effects of shootings must derive our information from others. Isn't that why we often ask for first hand range reports? :D

Yeah, I agree that some of their stuff is "out there" and many have disagreed or challenged their findings. What I do find in their papers and data is a confirmation of what many of us already know.

- Magnum velocity pistol bullets do a lot of damage.
- Higher muzzle velocity/energy translates to higher terminal velocity/energy.

I am just glad that somebody is doing some newer ballistics research for us to benefit from. Michael and Amy are graduates from MIT and Harvard. I gotta admit that they probably bring more to ballistics testing than I can muster. Who knows, they just might find something new we didn't know about. For me, like cancer research, more information we have the better. :D

Geckgo
December 17, 2010, 01:17 PM
Thanks for the links. I'm always open to listening to new ideas on the subject. It is just a shame that back in the days when people would duel with pistols nobody kept a stopwatch and a medical chart handy. Just think of all the information we would have, first hand, on wound ballistics! We need to bring back the duel and have doctors and statisticians standing by. As far as paying for the new sport, just imagine the ratings on ESPN!!! :D

Shawn Dodson
December 17, 2010, 01:29 PM
I am just glad that somebody is doing some newer ballistics research... The Courtneys' aren't doing any "new" research. They've merely compiled other scientists' research and are misrepresenting it to support their hypothesis.

It's junk science.

bds
December 17, 2010, 01:34 PM
They've merely compiled other scientists' research and are misrepresenting it to support their hypothesis.
Sadly, that's what "scientists" do. And with passage of time, many find the data they based their research was "faulty" and have to rewrite ... :rolleyes:

Shawn, I question some of their stuff but don't think all of their stuff is junk. Their data does show 357Mag is better than 9mm. They must be using some data that's correct. :D

Shawn Dodson
December 17, 2010, 01:44 PM
Their data does show 357Mag is better than 9mm. They must be using some data that's correct.

They Courtneys' have used Marshall/Sanow "data" to support their hypothesis. Is it correct? First person testimony - http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/sanow.pdf

PabloJ
December 17, 2010, 01:49 PM
There has been alot of myths about the stoping power of different handgun bullets, some people put all their faith in high speed "Hydrostatic shock" while others think that the caliber and mass of the bullet are the only thing that matters, how do we sort out fact from fiction? What better place to start then the statistics kept by the FBI. Here are a few examples of performance of different bullets. ATI=Average incapacitation time. This is an estamated number based on their formula of shock and blood loss. All of these were among the top performers in their respective calibers.
exp pen shock one shot stop ATI
Cor-Bon JHP +P 90 0.58 9.0in 467psi 70.0% 10.2 sec 380acp
Cor-Bon JHP 115gr 0.55in 14.2in 626psi 90.6% 8.8 sec 9mm
Federal Classic 125 0.65 12.0in 1487psi 95.8% 5.7 sec 357 mag
Remington Golden Saber0.68 12.0in 771psi 93.8% 7.9 sec 40 S&W
Cor-Bon JHP 185 0.7 11.3in 920psi 91.7% 7.2 sec 45 ACP

What does this tell us, well first of all the puney little 380 is far from worthless seeing as 70% of the time one shot was all it took.
Although the 45 did beat the 9mm in one shot stop ratio the margin was so slim that it is hardly noticable.
The myth on larger bullets always being more effective is busted here as the 357 magnum (9.1mm) has a higher one shot % and a faster ATI then any of the larger bores.
The choice of bullets seem to have more of an effect on performance then the choice of caliber as each had good and poor performers.
Other things start becoming more noticeable when comparing these charts in detail. The rapid opening shallow penatrating "shock" bullets tend to have a faster ATI but a lower one shot % then slower, heavier, deeper penatrating bullets that seem to be a more consistant performer. The FBI's 115gr silver tips that gave the 9mm such a bad reputation after the Miami shootout had very poor performance stats, they only had 8 inches of penatration and ranked amongst the lowest of any 9mm round.
I hope this will reduce some of the caliber bashing going on around here.
Unless there is little else to do I would not bother looking at Gendarmeria Nacional sats. Not sure about other calibers but the 9x19 Federal 'Classic' JHP is about the best load one can get. I bought couple boxes for my .45 as they are attractively priced when compared to fancy schmancy Gucci-Mo +P loads.

duns
December 17, 2010, 04:02 PM
I'm an admirer of the work of Michael and Amy Courtney. I find their work to be technically very sound. They have produced a predictive model for bullet effectiveness that correlates very well with Marshall and Sanow's One-Shot-Stop (OSS) ratings and with the incapacitation times in the Strasbourg goat tests. They have shown convincingly that the pressure wave effect is important even at handgun velocities.

The Courtney work gives renewed confidence in the Marshall and Sanow OSS ratings. For cartridges that were not represented in the Marshall and Sanow work (e.g. because they are new), the Courtney models allows the OSS ratings to be predicted. Their model also predicts incapacitation time. Useful and interesting stuff.

Shawn Dodson
December 17, 2010, 04:59 PM
They have produced a predictive model for bullet effectiveness that correlates very well with Marshall and Sanow's One-Shot-Stop (OSS) ratings and with the incapacitation times in the Strasbourg goat tests. As the hypothesis (predictive model) is based on Marshall/Sanow it's no surprise that it "correlates very well" with the same data.

It's an exercise in chasing ghosts: See that ghost over there? No? Keep lookin' 'cause I swear something's really there!

duns
December 17, 2010, 05:39 PM
As the hypothesis (predictive model) is based on Marshall/Sanow it's no surprise that it "correlates very well" with the same data.The Courtneys' regression equation contains just two adjustable parameters whose values were chosen to give the best fit to the Marshall and Sanow data. That is a standard statistical approach -- you come up with a model that makes sense physically and then you determine the values of the model parameters from the available data.

The Courtneys also developed a one-parameter regression equation that links the M&S one-shot-stop (OSS) ratings to the incapacitation times reported in the Strasbourg goat tests -- in other words, higher OSS ratings correspond to shorter incapacitation times, which adds credibility to both the OSS ratings and the goat test results.

Looking at the models, the M&S results, and the Strasbourg tests, all the pieces fit nicely together. What emerges is an understanding that bullet effectiveness depends not just on the volume of the permanent crush channel but also on the pressure waves created as the bullet decelerates. We also obtain an understanding of how the properties of the bullet (e.g. mass, velocity, expansion characteristics, fragmentation characteristics, etc.) affect the intensity of the pressure pulse.

I found it illuminating.

MikePGS
December 17, 2010, 05:41 PM
I don't even think it would be possible to calculate such a thing as "stopping power". There are far too many variables, and unless you were to shoot thousands of people repeatedly in the same area then derive some data from that, it's all just speculation.

Shadow 7D
December 17, 2010, 06:40 PM
Shawn, relax, snake oil works best if the buyer believes it's real...
too bad that entire science of ballistics isn't very developed with guys out there testing stuff and posting their tests and results on the internet.

Too bad there isn't such unscientific tests like a http://www.theboxotruth.com/
or any of the other places you can find if you like.

Pressure waves work, read the synopsis of a paper by Wang et al. Seems like it works MUCH better (as in if at all, and even then, they did not quantify the damage, merely observed that it could occur) at High velocity RIFLE (as in 3k+ FPS) And those pesky pistols will be relegated to using pesky quality bullets and sights for shot placement in vital areas.

Shadow 7D
December 17, 2010, 06:42 PM
BTW
can anybody even confirm that any such test on goats
like the 'strassburg' test even took place

From what I found, it's one guy, with an anonymous source, and magnatech with some advertising insert for sources that these even took place, and lets just say that Glaser is know for their advertising....

Shawn Dodson
December 17, 2010, 06:52 PM
The Courtneys also developed a one-parameter regression equation that links the M&S one-shot-stop (OSS) ratings to the incapacitation times reported in the Strasbourg goat tests -- in other words, higher OSS ratings correspond to shorter incapacitation times, which adds credibility to both the OSS ratings and the goat test results. If the person(s) who manufactured the "Strasbourg Tests" used Marshall/Sanow OSS data to derive fabricated results - they would compliment one another quite well.

duns
December 17, 2010, 07:24 PM
I don't even think it would be possible to calculate such a thing as "stopping power". There are far too many variables, and unless you were to shoot thousands of people repeatedly in the same area then derive some data from that, it's all just speculation.There are many variables but only two appear to be really important given adequate penetration - permanent crush volume and pressure wave intensity.

Shadow 7D
December 17, 2010, 07:54 PM
right, but in pistol round the 'pressure wave effect' is questionable at best, especially on a systemic level, I mean, yeah put a bullet in hard organ like the liver and you can create 'rends' like gel, but most tissue is VERY elastic. So it comes to a good HP and a large permanent cavity.

Geckgo
December 17, 2010, 08:25 PM
What about phaser guns??? If you vaporize someone then that would definitely be a one stop shot and very provable.... If only we had ray guns we wouldn't need all of these unreliable bullets.

duns
December 17, 2010, 08:35 PM
right, but in pistol round the 'pressure wave effect' is questionable at best, especially on a systemic level, I mean, yeah put a bullet in hard organ like the liver and you can create 'rends' like gel, but most tissue is VERY elastic. So it comes to a good HP and a large permanent cavity.What you say is a common assumption, but Courtney and Courtenay have shown (to my satisfaction at least) that the assumption is false and there is a pressure wave effect even in handgun rounds. You can find their papers at http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm.

jon_in_wv
December 17, 2010, 09:06 PM
I've learned that the more I work on my marksmanship the less I care about this crap.

Shadow 7D
December 17, 2010, 09:07 PM
Ok Duns, there is a wave, if you take their data (btw there are other explainations of the damage, medically speaking) And that might cause damage to the CNS,

Here is the LEAP
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN PRACTICALLY,
cause it definitely isn't going to turn your brains into mush
hell, look at the damage NFL players take, there are lots of HITS to the head, yet they walk off the field every day, and MUCH later have health problems. So to conclude that this spike is incapacitating seem to be a rather large leap.

FLAvalanche
December 17, 2010, 09:24 PM
Why do we care about one stop shots?

Honestly?

The only people who jump on the one shot stop bandwagon are those wanting to justify their use of a caliber other people deem useless.

Why do we care about one stop shots when we're trained to shoot until the threat stops which in that situation usually translates into "dump the magazine"?

stanger04
December 17, 2010, 09:33 PM
Okay maybe I read over posts and if I missed this mentioned I'm sorry, but if this is real sounds like the FBI wants everyone but them to carry .380's, makes their job easier,lol.

duns
December 17, 2010, 10:11 PM
Ok Duns, there is a wave, if you take their data (btw there are other explainations of the damage, medically speaking) And that might cause damage to the CNS,

Here is the LEAP
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN PRACTICALLY,
cause it definitely isn't going to turn your brains into mush
hell, look at the damage NFL players take, there are lots of HITS to the head, yet they walk off the field every day, and MUCH later have health problems. So to conclude that this spike is incapacitating seem to be a rather large leap.Yes, a bullet could directly damage the CNS but even if it does not then the CNS can in some cases be damaged indirectly. The pressure in the immediate vicinity of the bullet is very high, maybe as much as 1,000 psi or more (depending on caliber, mass, velocity, and rate of deceleration). The local pressure does not just disappear, it spreads out in the body -- the pressure wave. The pressure to cause traumatic brain injury is only 15-45 psi. Traumatic brain injury is concussion in common parlance and the symptoms can include amnesia, confusion, and loss of consciousness. There is reason to believe that a gunshot wound to (for example) the chest can sometimes cause these damaging pressures in the brain. It does not always happen but when it does happen it accounts for a person being rapidly incapacitated. Incapacitation by bleeding out takes upwards of 5 seconds. When incapacitation occurs in less than 5 seconds and the CNS was not directly injured, it is probably due to this concussive effect. The concussion by the way does not necessarily involve structural damage to the brain but may just involve chemical changes in response to the pressure. The person could well recover from the trauma if that were the only injury but in the case of gunshot wounds they will often bleed out before recovering from the traumatic brain injury. I'm not a biochemist but this is my layman's understanding based on reading the Courtney and Courtney papers.

duns
December 17, 2010, 10:21 PM
If the person(s) who manufactured the "Strasbourg Tests" used Marshall/Sanow OSS data to derive fabricated results - they would compliment one another quite well.That is true but we don't know if "Strasbourg" was a hoax or not. If the test data in the Strasbourg report turn out to be corroborated by later research results (that could not have been known to the Strasbourg authors in circa 1992 or 93), that would tend to suggest the tests were real. Conversely, if later results disagree, that would tend to suggest a hoax. Until someone has done that kind of analysis, I think we should keep an open mind.

duns
December 17, 2010, 10:38 PM
Okay maybe I read over posts and if I missed this mentioned I'm sorry, but if this is real sounds like the FBI wants everyone but them to carry .380's, makes their job easier,lol.I think the OP incorrectly attributed his data to the FBI. The FBI report posted in one of the above threads is "Handgun wounding factors and effectiveness" and it claims that the size of the permanent cavity is the main relevant factor. It claims the idea of "shock" is a myth. It certainly doesn't advocate .380's! I think the OP's data may have come from Courtney and Courtney based on Marshall and Sanow and the Strasburg goat tests. That work does not really support the .380 either since it gives the effectiveness rating as only about 70% compared with about 90% for the bigger calibers.

easyg
December 17, 2010, 11:55 PM
The .357mag appears to be the 'Perfect Storm' of handgun calibers.
Unless you factor in capacity and ease of reloading. ;)

Erik
December 18, 2010, 12:27 AM
The numbers tell nothing of how the gunshots were delivered. And the how is important, less you take numbers derived from incidents were folks were shot at point blank range in the back of the head and use them to justify a choice for a very different purpose.

--

"And yet no police agency in the USA issues or recommends a .380 as a service pistol, including the FBI."

Yep.

dlee4697
December 18, 2010, 01:01 AM
in my experiences I have seen several people shot and killed with .25's .32's and .380's. A bullet fired from a gun can kill you no matter what the caliber. sometimes it was one lucky (or unlucky) shot out of many and sometimes it was a bunch that hit. Bullets in any caliber do weird things when they hit a human body. Spin, ricochet, fragment or stop. I have seen people shot in the head walking around and talking like nothing has happened and lived.

so what i'm getting at is the only valuable data is the data your getting back as your firing that weapon and seeing what is happening to the threat and responding accordingly.

Leaky Waders
December 18, 2010, 02:37 AM
There has been alot of myths about the stoping...how do we sort out fact from fiction?

Here are a few examples of performance of different bullets...an estimated number based on their formula of shock and blood loss.

So one perpetuates more myth with fiction? Fabricated numbers and no real world results?

If you want to see how well your handgun performs as a one shot stopper...take it deer hunting. If your caliber isn't legal to use for deer hunting...hmm...then it's probably not the best choice as a defense weapon.

If you had to chase your deer after a well aimed shot to the vitals for miles to empty your magazine of wonderbeesuper380express...then you may want to move up a little.

If you made a humane kill on a deer with a shot to the vitals, then you may be able to replicate that shot when your slinging lead downrange in a real defense situation.

Of course, a gun is better than no gun for defense, but for real world application of one shot dropping power this 'formula' has already been discovered by generations of American hunters with real world experience.

oldfool
December 18, 2010, 08:09 AM
yeah, but I bet the deer will run away when shot at, even a 22 rimfire, even if missed altogether
headline - "deadly deer attack narrowly averted with a one shot stop" ??

just kidding, there
BGs don't always run away, and the deer hunting analogy always did strike me as mighty sensible - far more so than any "studies", agree
but instant one shot kills on bambi are not guaranteed by caliber either, not even with a 30-06

all the same, if seeking a one shot stopper, carry a 30-30 or 308 rifle
now, if they only made 'em in blocky black plastic w/ DAO triggers.. oh wait,they do !
but IWB or OWB, hmmm... or maybe pocket carry... choices, choices, choices

scaatylobo
December 18, 2010, 10:31 AM
SHOT PLACEMENT = period.

stanger04
December 18, 2010, 02:20 PM
I maybe weird but I was brought up to fear the man with one gun, cause you can bet he knows how to use it, no matter the caliber.

My grandfather when he was young lived on a farm, they raised their own food. They slaughtered pigs with .22 shorts, one shot to the head, usually all it took but it the shot was off it took another.

Point is most testing is done with pigs due to size and anatomy, if a .22 short can kill a pig it can kill a person. I'm not saying it's the best defense gun but better than nothing. All one shot kills really come back to one thing first placement, then caliber. If you have a .308 but can't put the bullet where it needs to be it's no good.

ttheel
December 18, 2010, 03:06 PM
If you have a .308 but can't put the bullet where it needs to be it's no good.

a .308 hunting load would bring down anybody pretty much instantly except maybe in the arms and hands, and the shock from even that would almost undoubtedly end any confrontation.

stanger04
December 18, 2010, 03:20 PM
A .308 would if you hit them yes, arm I dunno, I know an LEO that had to take down a man with force, the guy was heavily drugged. He and his partner put a total of 23 9mm rds. in him before he fell. The shots we made at 10'-20' the guy finally turned around walked about 5' before he fell dead. He had several fatal wounds but due to the drugs he was on was not fazed.

Shots were primarily placed in chest but some hit arms and upper thigh, LE's don't go for head or exactly aim for the heart, as political issues arise from victims' families. Which to me they are not victims they are assailants but people will make excuses for anyone.

Diggers
December 18, 2010, 03:56 PM
I'm pretty much DONE with these studies and the topic in general. After reading many reports its very obvious the effects of a caliber in a REAL shooting are NOT quantifiable.

Every shooting is a unique event. No two people are ever shot identically, and even if they were they will react differently depending on their "will to fight" which is impossible to determine.

These studies can't determine what caliber works best.

David E
December 18, 2010, 04:03 PM
I maybe weird but I was brought up to fear the man with one gun, cause you can bet he knows how to use it...

That may have been true in times past, but now? No, usually the guy that only owns one gun has only fired it 6-12 times from the original box of ammo he bought with it 20 years ago.

JohnBiltz
December 18, 2010, 04:39 PM
If you check the lists of Medal of Honor winners you will find a lot of guys who were not stopped with hits from some pretty respectable rifle calibers. I read one of Ayoob's accounts of a police officer where he was shot in the face with a .45 when the fight started and took more hits as the fight went on. Caliber helps but nothing under .50 BMG is 100%. Foolish to think otherwise.

BlindJustice
December 18, 2010, 06:20 PM
One characteristic of a cartridge is caliber

Cartridge and Caliber are not interchangeable

R-

oldfool
December 18, 2010, 06:25 PM
significant pressure wave damage created by objects whilst moving at less than mach1 in and through (and keep moving through, not just into) the medium is something only a Harvard/MIT grad would ever do a study on (translation = balderdash, even if funded balderdash)
none of which counts for squat if "it's only a flesh wound", thru & thru never did do what deep into and but mostly not thru did do, unless they go in at just the very best places

want to find out what kills, kill some stuff, jello don't bleed
M&S did sloppy statistical analysis and anything based on that is sloppy statistical analysis
357 and 45 always did better than most handgun rounds, and still do

ISU, AeroE, Sigma GammaTau, Pi Mu Epsilon, Tau Beta Pi
so there :neener:

get a bigger bore or get a rifle :rolleyes:

Shadow 7D
December 18, 2010, 08:05 PM
Wait, you mean that guy I saw in Iraq (family claimed he was a sheep herder, but then what was he doing in the deadman zone between the wire???)

got stitched by ADA, with their usual accuracy (no internal guidance with ol Ma Duce) and walked out minus an arm a week later...

And those are some of the "High Velocity, Hydrostatic shock capable" rounds, yet he lived...
LOL.
SHOT PLACEMENT = period.
__________________

bears repeating

Casefull
December 18, 2010, 10:36 PM
want to find out what kills, kill some stuff, jello don't bleed
M&S did sloppy statistical analysis and anything based on that is sloppy statistical analysis
357 and 45 always did better than most handgun rounds, and still do

I am a hunter and I kill live animals with firearms. I shoot a fox with a .22 and it tips over and is dead. I shoot a coyote with 7 mag at 180 yds and it has a 4 in diameter hole in its neck. I have shot elk that stand and look at me and do not yet know they are dead. If we want it to look like the movies we had better use a 12 gauge with '00'.
Most pistol calibers do not have the velocity or mass to clobber a man size animal. In my opinion 9mm is too small a bullet and 45acp is too slow. Now if you get the 45 up to 1300...1400 fps with 200 g. then you are getting close to power. Who wants to shoot full house 44 mag all the time though? I think of pistols as compromises. If you really want to kill a large animal get a decent sized rifle.

bds
December 18, 2010, 11:09 PM
Most pistol calibers do not have the velocity or mass to clobber a man size animal. In my opinion 9mm is too small a bullet and 45acp is too slow.
Casefull, thanks for bringing some sense of "reality" to the discussion.

As to OP, how many of us would go hunting with short barreled 380Auto to kill man sized animals? Probably not many.

rocky1
December 19, 2010, 01:21 AM
Personally...

I used to own a 44 Mag for bear hunting, because we saw too many bear taking too many 357 and 9mm rounds and run off. They didn't do that with anywhere near the same frequency when we all started carrying 44.

----------

Presently own a 45 and a 40. Why 45, because the 45 ACP has been in use in the US military for nearly 100 years. That tells me, 1.) It's a reliable weapon, often under harsh conditions, and 2.) It's an effective weapon. I don't need a ballistics report to determine that; a hundred years in military service establishes that fact. I honestly don't believe there is another weapon that comes close to that track record. PERIOD!

Why the 40... because I liked the looks of it, the price was right, and I had the cash in my pocket at the time.

Do I think it's an effective SD weapon? Most definitely!
As effective as the 45? If I hit you in the head with it every bit! In certain respects it has advantages, what it lacks in stopping power per round, it makes up for in more rounds. It's a double action versus single, doesn't have quite as much recoil, isn't quite as large a frame does have a larger grip because of the double stack mag so it still fits me well, and thus I might be likely to shoot it better in a gunfight. Haven't been there yet with either, so it's pruely speculation at this point.

-----

As for the references to the supposed FBI report... The report is over 20 years old, the advances in handgun technology, and factory loads has changed a great deal in that course of time. And, as many have stated, who timing the incapacitation.

-----

For the sake of those who keep yelling placement counts... Yep!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugyO7dcF1n8

MikePGS
December 19, 2010, 01:28 AM
I've learned that the more I work on my marksmanship the less I care about this crap.
I believe you just won this thread, and every other "Stopping Power Thread" we'll see.

Casefull
December 19, 2010, 09:33 PM
I love my .45's. A few years ago I shot a spike elk across a small canyon...250 to 300 yds. 2 ft of snow. I went back to where my horse was tied off, down the mountain and up the other side to get the elk but could not get the horse close because steepness and snow. I saw the animal go down after shot so left rifle in scabbard and climbed up to the elk on foot with my trusty 1911 with me. Elk was laying down looking at me. He had a broken shoulder but was not near dying...being lazy I did not want to climb down to get the rifle so I got within 20 yds and shot that spike in the back of the head. His head dropped and he shook his head and looked at me like "is that all you got". I moved a little closer and squeezed off another round. Hair flew where the bullet hit but the elk shook his head and seemed no worse for wear. I am looking at the pistol and thanking God no one is watching my sh---y shooting. The 3rd shot did not do the trick either. I finally realized the rounds were clancing off the skull of the elk. Embarressed I moved to the side and put the next one in his ear finally ending said ballistics test. It was Federal 225 g hardball ammo. Now we do not have skulls like elk or hereford cattle but I think you see what I learned. There is always a lot of big talk on bullet placement and shooting someone in the face or heart. If I am ever in that situation I hope I have the calmness to not jerk the trigger but none of my animal friends are shooting at me. I assume I would be scared and maybe quite inaccurate. BTW I shot another fox this morning with the kimber 22. It fell down and looked like it was going to die until my lab SKINNER headed for it and the wounded fox jumped up and began running...guess I should have used the .223. ( It turned out to be a lung shot) Sorry for the wordiness

vaherder
December 19, 2010, 10:08 PM
Rocky 1 said
"Presently own a 45 and a 40. Why 45, because the 45 ACP has been in use in the US military for nearly 100 years. That tells me, 1.) It's a reliable weapon, often under harsh conditions, and 2.) It's an effective weapon. I don't need a ballistics report to determine that; a hundred years in military service establishes that fact. I honestly don't believe there is another weapon that comes close to that track record. PERIOD! "

Obviously you haven't read much about how the US military goes about acquiring weapons of any type especially rifles and pistols.

Just because the US military chose the 45acp doesnt mean they made the right decision. What is their current choice? They still use the M4/M16 in combat. For the last 20 years at least there have been better battle rifles out there.

My suggestion is find a nice Highland Single malt you like and read up on how Uncle Sam selects weapons for it soldiers, sailors, marines, coasties and airmen. Its scary and most of its low bid.

If you ever want to scare a navy fighter pilot tell him all his equipment and all the the training the personnel got is low bid!

I have experienced Uncle Sam's choices but I also got to pick my weapons.

Va Herder

fmcdave
December 19, 2010, 11:23 PM
This is one of those "endless debates"...that said, I'll join in. But remember, I'm an engineer.

I think "best caliber" is a function of shot placement and caliber. A well placed small caliber hit will do the job whilst winging someone with a .44 mag will not. Shot placement is quite frankly dependent on luck and practice. If you don't practice, you had better be darned lucky.

So, I would say buy a caliber and gun that you can shoot comfortably SO THAT YOU CAN PRACTICE A LOT! One of my friends bought one of those new .500mag pistols...but he can only shoot it a couple of times before he has to quit. IMO, that's kinda sorta useless. You are better off picking a gun/caliber that you can shoot endlessly.

Myself, I generally carry .40S&W or above. But I shoot them a lot. My wife has just decided to switch from her Keltec P32 to a Glock26. But her decision was Not based on .32acp versus 9mm. She couldn't shoot the Keltec for crap and did much better with the Glock. So she is going for the heavier weapon for shot placement...not caliber.
Dave

razorback2003
December 21, 2010, 11:26 PM
I have known of a deer being killed with a 22 LR target pistol by a deer hunter quite a long time ago. I am sure the ease of shooting the target gun helped the hunter place his shot carefully to put the deer down.

I have also heard stories from kin of pigs and cattle being killed with headshots with 22 rifles.

38 specials have done their fair share on bad guys when used by good shooters, especially in the days when a lot of police carried them. Super Vel ammo didn't come out until the 70's. Even then, bad guys didn't drop instantly. Some run just like deer when hit and keep going. Bad guys still do that today when hit with all sorts of handguns.

No handgun is great because it is really a backup to a long gun. Think of deer hunting. Deer are about the same weight as people. The only suitable handgun calibers to humanely hunt deer are 41/44 mag and maybe 357 mag/10mm to do a one shot and the deer humanely be put down. No one would use 9mm, 38 special, 40, 45, except to finish off a deer that has already been shot.

Practice with whatever you are comfortable with and keep it handy. Profiency is more important than caliber and so is keeping it on you when in public.

Kachok
December 21, 2010, 11:50 PM
Amen to that, I don't care for people wounding deer with their .45 just to try and prove it's stopping power. Too many guys around here have tired them on feral hogs only to end up making excuses why they did not drop. 40s and 9mm are not any better. To kill anything over 100lbs a 357mag or 10mm sould be the minimum, and in many states that is the law.

sgt127
December 21, 2010, 11:53 PM
I can pretty much be assured thats an old list. The 357 SIG is not listed. Its becoming a pretty popular pistol round for soem Fed agencies, City and county cops and Highway Patrols.

For a handgun, I think its a dandy round. I think its generally agreed that the old 125 GR .357 Magnum was a pretty decent fight stopper. It worked as well or better than most other handgun rounds. It also shot alot of people as it was a really major round for alot of LE agencies for (what?) close to 20 years? So, theres alot of data on it.

Give me a good auto with the reliability of a bottlenecked cartrige with those kind of ballistics, and, i'm pretty happy with it.

Maverick223
December 23, 2010, 02:28 AM
I typically tend to stay out of such handgun cartridge discussion (after all it never ends well), but I have to throw just one wrench into the equation...barrel length.

I have been carefully considering adding another pistol to the stable (I currently only have a Ruger LCP .380ACP carry pistol and H&K USP-FS .45ACP sidearm). Something for "cold weather carry" (a heavy pistol for heavy clothes). I have decided that a SIG P239 in .357SIG or a S&W 360PD in .357Mag. (please don't attempt to talk me into a hammerless model...it'll do no good). Both have very similar cartridges, but I have come to discover that one has a significant advantage. The snubby only produces the velocity of a .38Spl. out of a decent length bbl (about 5in.), whilst the P239 has a more appropriately size bbl (still only 3.6in.) that affords better performance. It yields a staggering 40% increase in velocity and therefore roughly a 80% increase in energy (according to Ballistics by the Inch (http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/results.html)).

In short there is a great deal more to consider than just the cartridge case, nitrocellulose, and projectile. Begin to take into consideration the stuff that really matters (shot placement, weight/size of target, distance, clothing/barrier penetration, angle, et cetera ad infinitum) and the calculation becomes impossible.

What does all this mean in practical terms?...That faster is better, and bigger is better still...but using what you feel comfortable with is paramount (I strongly believe that a .380ACP that one practices and becomes proficient with is far superior to the 10mmAuto that they fear). Every single handgun cartridge mentioned here is marginal (and the ones that aren't are unwieldy implements designed for hunting)...want something with a good factor of safety and better "one shot stop" pick up a rifle (or better yet a scattergun), otherwise use what you can handle and have available.

:)

amazon shooter
December 23, 2010, 06:40 PM
This one-shot stop idea is like talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

It might have been important back in the duelling days (up to the Civil War) when one-shot, flintlock duelling pistols were used and were made as large as .57 caliber.

It’s time to wake up and look at the calerdar, it’s 2010, and most handguns have changed – most carry at least 5 shots!

As GunTech and Fastcast said, “Multiple rounds into the target.”

If anyone can take five hits of 38 cal., 150 gr. wadcutters and keep ticking, better ask Timex to make a new ad campaign.

dryflyelk
December 23, 2010, 06:48 PM
And in the end, the 10mm wins.

Really. Why isn't it a more popular cartridge? I've had 'em all, and I can't for the life of me figure it out. Its a 357 and a .40 and a .45 all rolled up into one.

fastbolt
December 23, 2010, 07:14 PM
And in the end, the 10mm wins.

Really. Why isn't it a more popular cartridge? I've had 'em all, and I can't for the life of me figure it out. Its a 357 and a .40 and a .45 all rolled up into one.

The 10mm developed limited interest in LE circles. The FBI used a reduced power load from the outset, not a standard power Norma load.

The cartridge requires a .45 size grip platform, and that isn't something that's been found to be desirable, or even practical, in many instances for shooters with smaller hands or shorter fingers. The 9/.40/357 guns offer a wide range of users a better grip size and dimensions in this regard. That isn't to be ignored.

Also, the stronger power 10mm loads, even those just similar to the original load, are often described as being less helpful and practical for many users who aren't caliber/horsepower junkies and enthusiasts, or who are willing to invest the extra time that might be needed to master the 10mm.

I've watched a very small number of folks who went through qualification courses-of-fire using 10mm pistols (I can remember a couple of Colt Delta Elites and a G20, just off the top of my head). One fellow only qualified with just his 10's, while the other guy used a couple of other caliber pistols, as well. I remember the guy shooting the Colts used Winchester 175gr STHP loads, but don't remember what the other guys used.

Both men exhibited slower shots than the rest of the folks around them when shooting the 10's, and the fellow qualifying with other guns was faster and seemingly more confident than when shooting his G20. He said he'd owned and had been shooting the G20 for a while, too.

Now, I'm not someone adverse to felt recoil or muzzle blast. I grew up learning to be a handloader and using heavy loads in various Magnum revolvers (.357, .41, .44), and "Ruger Only" handloads in Ruger .45's. I handled and tried out one of the first G20's imported into the country back in late '90, when a Glock rep brought one to an instructor class I was attending. He provided Norma ammunition with the G20 for range demo.

I remember thinking it felt like a moderately pleasant recoiling and handling pistol for that caliber ... but that doesn't mean a lot of other folks who didn't grow up learning to appreciate and enjoy the recoil developed in Magnum revolvers would feel the same way, or someone whose only pistol experience is 9mm would necessarily like the transition to full power 10mm.

Lastly, there's the issue that the 10mm doesn't seem to have benefited from the defensive ammunition development of the last couple of decades in the same manner as the common calibers found in LE/Gov service. Not by most of the major ammo companies. Sure, the smaller ammunition companies have worked to fill this niche and meet enthusiast demand, but the major makers apparently haven't seen a large enough market to justify including the 10mm in their major modern defensive lines.

Don't get me wrong. I actually feel the caliber deserved more attention than it's received over the last 25-odd years. I think in a TCFMJ loading it might have made for an excellent military service pistol ... although again, many regular folks dislike the increased grip girth and felt recoil.

I remember when the average number of pistol rounds designated to be fired for training through the Beretta M9 was 80 rounds per year. How can anyone develop mastery of the larger, heavier recoiling pistol in that limited training usage?

Just my thoughts, though. I certainly wouldn't begrudge owners and enthusiasts of the 10mm from enjoying and using the caliber.

BTW, "Stopping Power" is a topic which is better suited to discussing disc brakes in motor vehicles ...

amazon shooter
December 23, 2010, 07:33 PM
How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin?

varoadking
December 23, 2010, 07:43 PM
Nevermind...

gym
December 24, 2010, 03:08 PM
It's not the gun or the round that get's the job done. It's the ability to stand there and place the bullett where it is going to do the most damage. If you must, drop to one knee, and take a breath, hold it and put one round between the eyes. These debates are meaningless, unless you hit what your aiming at

fastbolt
December 24, 2010, 03:16 PM
Maybe this might be a good time to remind folks that when various armed professionals gather for training & practice it's not really the gear (guns, caliber & ammunition) that becomes the focal point, but the mindset & skillsets of the folks who use the gear.

Mindset, training, experience and tactics ...

Specific gun, caliber & ammunition choices might be interesting when idle conversations arise during "down time", but they tend to take on a lesser degree of importance when conversations turn to serious matters.

Except on the internet, of course. ;)

M1key
December 24, 2010, 03:25 PM
^^^great points, fast...

The internet doesn't shoot back. :cool:


M

NoAlibi
December 24, 2010, 07:33 PM
I believe that anyone who takes all the studies of one shot stops at face value is missing the point.

Does this mean that the studies are worthless...NO. If we look at a particular cartridge in a given caliber, these studies show that there is a consistency in those that are listed as top performers.

Does this mean that I’m going to rely on them to stop my assailant with one shot...NO. But I am going to select a listed top performer as my carry-round so when I shoot that assailant multiple times I will be more confident in the results rather than selecting a poor performer and always wondering if I have given myself a good enough chance for survival...Doc

Shawn Dodson
December 24, 2010, 07:53 PM
Does this mean that the studies are worthless...NO. If we look at a particular cartridge in a given caliber, these studies show that there is a consistency in those that are listed as top performers. Bullet design has improved substantially since Marshall/Sanow published their latest findings 10 years ago. The "data", if one wishes to believe they are true, are obsolete. Federal HST and Barnes Tac-X didn't exist 10 years ago. The Gold Dot of today is different than the bullet with the same name of 10 years ago.

bds
December 24, 2010, 07:57 PM
fastbolt, +1 on your post!

I believe OSS and AIT data are useful to us not necessarily in determining which caliber/bullet weight is best, but providing comparative data as to how each perform in relation to others.

Specific gun, caliber & ammunition choices might be interesting when idle conversations arise during "down time", but they tend to take on a lesser degree of importance when conversations turn to serious matters.
Firearms are simply tools we use. If we need to chop up some celery for a dip tray, we could use a chef knife, slicing knife, boning knife or even a clever. They all will accomplish the task. How well and fast we accomplish the task will depend on our proficiency in using the various knives.

In the end, we are talking about trying to stop a determined attacker with a tool. Whichever tool we can be proficient in may provide greater significance than which tool we choose to use.

TexasBill
December 24, 2010, 08:38 PM
You can add to that the same discussion about the 9mm vs. the .45 ACP. While there have been no duty .380 cal weapons used by the Police, many, such as the Indiana State Police, issued Beretta Model 84s as "off-duty" guns. Most other PDs also allow at least some .380 ACP weapons for "off duty" carry. Then again, the Germans used the .380 and .32 ACP for police DUTY use, along with much of Europe, into the 1970s, without complaint. The Italians used the .380 ACP Beretta Model 1934 in .380 ACP for their Army issue pistol, and the .32 ACP for the Navy. While they didn't do too well against the Allies, they seemed to work pretty well against the Ethiopians.

It's always amusing to watch how the bigger is better theorum always seems to stop at the posters favorite cartridge.

The New Jersey State Police issued Walther PPK pistols in .380 ACP as a duty weapon for detectives and plainclothes officers.

If you enjoyed reading about "FBI STATS 380 vs 9mm vs 357 vs 40 vs 45" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!