One-Shot Incapacitation by Handgun Compared

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMHO the is no one shot incapacitation with a handgun with anything less than a .357 mag. If you believe that a .32 acp has better performance than a .44 Mag go for it. Incapacitation mandates a hit on CNS or cardiovascular.
Disclosure, I work in an inner city trauma center. We had a DOA gsw who was shot 3” above the knee it bisected the femoral artery, bled out in 5 min. Another GSW brought in we called him “ mister lucky” had 13 gsw likely 9 mm fmj (some were pass thrus) survived and went home. Go figure.
 
Disclosure, I work in an inner city trauma center. We had a DOA gsw who was shot 3” above the knee it bisected the femoral artery, bled out in 5 min. Another GSW brought in we called him “ mister lucky” had 13 gsw likely 9 mm fmj (some were pass thrus) survived and went home. Go figure.

I suspect you have observed that anything that lives and breathes, if you make it bleed enough, it will stop living and breathing. Sufficient blood loss is 100% fatal. That is why I believe in the bigger through hole theory. The bigger the through hole, the more likely a major organ, or an artery/blood vessel will be hit, and the better the subsequent drainage of blood. Once enough blood is lost out of the system, the organism will stop being a threat.

Notice the multiple shots the social justice warrior receives, and yet he continues his activities, including wrestling with the women, until his brain runs out of oxygen. Then he drops. And surprisingly, survives.

 
Last edited:
Lots of wind and hoopla...

Simple answer: Small sample size error!

Same reason a 2moa rifle will occasionally shot a 3-shot, 1/2” groups. Random error.

Too few examples to be statistically meaningful.
But it still doesn’t mean you want to be shot with a .32acp! It’s just powerful enough to ruin your day.
 
Notice the multiple shots the social justice warrior receives, and yet he continues his activities, including wrestling with the women, until his brain runs out of oxygen. Then he drops. And surprisingly, survives.

Some people don't think examples are possibly applicable to them if LE involved.
The video you linked is civilians, so the people who think LE involved shootings inapplicable see that video and entertain that they might have to defend against an individual of similar resolve, right. LOL - Nope.
Why not? Typical response is they don't work in a liquor store, therefore that incident is dismissed.

Like the recent incident where a guy was killed trying to reload a revolver, civilian shooting.
Did that incident result in people thinking, "Wow, 5 shots may not be enough". LOL, Nope.
Why was that incident inapplicable? It happened at a bar, they don't go to bars. Bad tactics. Wasn't their town. Anything other than need more than 5 rounds.

Examples don't matter because people content with what they are doing don't want to change.
I'll apply that statement to myself as well.
If there were zero civilian examples of 5-6 rounds not being enough (ignoring the liquor store & bar shootings), I'm not carrying a revolver as a primary, nowhere.

Video of guy walking toward a cop taking multiple 9mm Gold Dots and not being quickly incapacitated:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/v...deputy-soaks-up-12-rounds-before-hes-stopped/
My take away is 9mm minimum and capacity is advantageous, that is my take away.
Some people look for ways the incident does not apply to them.
 
I think what's wrong here is simply a flawed mentality on the shooters part. They've been convinced that if they use XX caliber, it absolves them of having to actually become proficient with what they carry and maintain that. Why should they bother, the caliber they choose is the highest one shot stop in some list, and no matter where that happens to hit.

I think its just human nature to want to get by with the least amount of work and effort, and carrying a realistic gun is such a big PITA, and putting in the time and effort to actually be reasonably proficient with it even more so, so going with the smallest gun that easiest to carry, and someone posts a number, based on who knows what, that says youre in one-stop heaven to boot, and hey, youre good to go!

Im betting most people are woefully unprepared with the gun they choose, but they do have a gun, so they are prepared. At least in their minds.


My favorite trick question.... How many rounds, of any caliber, does it take to solve the problem?

The answer is simple.... The exact number it takes. Dont stop shooting until you get there. ;)

Your chances get a lot better if you bring enough... gun, ammo, and skill. :)
 
Some people don't think examples are possibly applicable to them if LE involved.
The video you linked is civilians, so the people who think LE involved shootings inapplicable see that video and entertain that they might have to defend against an individual of similar resolve, right. LOL - Nope.

Why not? Typical response is they don't work in a liquor store, therefore that incident is dismissed.

I used to link to "You are not so Smart", which is a web site about human biases, such as confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and the site had a nice list of human biases. I did read their Book "You are not so Smart" and came to conclusion that I had been guilty of most, if not all of the biases they listed.

Confirmation bias is one of the strongest biases out there: we see only what we want to see. Denial is intrinsic to the human mind. There are people studying denial as a human condition. Debate with an Anti Vaxxer and see denial and a very long list of biases.
 

The article includes the following passage, which I take issue with for reasons stated below:

"FBI research, as well as accounts from such legendary gunfighters as William Fairbairn and Jim Cirillo, indicate even trained personnel hit their target two or three times for every ten rounds fired in a shootout. This suggests high magazine capacity is vital (Vail, FBI). Once the shooting starts, people fire as many times as they can as fast as they can, and people involved move in every conceivable direction. There is often little, if any, time to reload, so you’re stuck with however many rounds are in your gun at the moment."

For a civilian who is carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense purposes, it is highly unlikely that he will end up in a "shootout." To begin with, the objective for a civilian in a self-defense situation is to simply break contact and not close with the enemy. Getting into a gunfight is for soldiers or cops; not for me taking my family out to dinner or walking in a parking lot somewhere. The far more likely scenario is that the typical civilian might be forced to simply draw / display his firearm and not discharge it, which in almost all cases will be sufficient to dissuade the erstwhile assailant from further aggression. Obviously, the caliber of the firearm is irrelevant in that case. Next, if a civilian is forced to discharge his weapon, it better be in counter-ambush defensive mode and for the absolute minimum number of rounds because each shot has a lawsuit or criminal prosecution tied to it and unless you want to end up in jail or lose your nest-egg, you're just stupid if you end up in a "gunfight." Hence, any prudent self-defender is just not going to be blasting away spraying and praying, going through several magazines as fast as he can. Moreover, from the data I"ve seen, the typical self-defense shooting involves the defender firing 2-3 rounds in order to break contact -- not some crazy magazine dump. That leaves you in the position of having to live-out the adage that "marksmanship is king," as well as the scientific reality that greater kinetic energy delivered to vital targets results in greater potential incapacitating damage. In other words, it's .40 or .45 for me....
 
Last edited:
Im betting most people are woefully unprepared with the gun they choose, but they do have a gun, so they are prepared. At least in their minds.

Whether or not they are woefully unprepared really depends on the situation. After all, most people are able to accomplish effective stops without ever firing a shot. Out of the supposed ~2 million times a year guns are used successfully, >80% of the time was without firing a shot. So for a tremendous number of people, just having a gun really was enough in terms of preparation and skill. https://americangunfacts.com/guns-used-in-self-defense-stats/

My favorite trick question.... How many rounds, of any caliber, does it take to solve the problem?

The answer is simple.... The exact number it takes. Dont stop shooting until you get there. ;)

You are right. It is a trick question because often the number of rounds it takes to resolve a problem is ZERO. :D
 
If just having the gun stops things, great. In that case, 0 was the exact number of rounds needed. :)

But to be realistic, counting on using your gun as a threat, is never a good idea, and you need to be prepared and able to back it up, in a heartbeat, when you need to.

Of course, either way, that's assuming too, you are able to draw and present the gun in 2 seconds or so from how you carry it, so you actually are a threat, assuming the other side is impressed. And thats under all circumstances, not just when you are ready.

Assuming youre prepared, simply because you have a gun, is a very flawed way to look at things.
 
Ive been a street cop in a big city for going on 15 years now. I was an Army Infantryman with two tours in Iraq beforehand. Ive seen a lot of people shot. Homicides, suicides, assaults, accidents, combat.... Ive seen hundreds if not thousands of people shot.

It really is simple. It's not complicated. The number of shots it takes is the number of shots it takes that day. You'll find out the number at the end. The smallest cartridge I've seen give 100 percent 1 shot stops has been the 25mm out of the Bradley. Personally Ive seen the 50 BMG do it as well, but Ive heard 1st hand accounts of guys still fighting after limb hits.

Now that doesnt mean I believe all cartridges are equal. Ive said many times that I dont see a difference in the "duty cartridges" as far as effectiveness. Good hits are good hits and bad hits are bad hits.I definitely see a difference in the smaller cartridges, starting at 380. Mostly it has to do with the penetration abilities, particularly through bone. When you start talking about the heavier bones around the major joints, even the duty calibers have a hard time getting through that. They'll absolutely demolish the bone/joint but usually wont get through or will travel only a short distance after.

All of that doesnt even scratch the surface on the physical and psychological aspect of the suspect being shot. Things like determination, mental illness, and substances on board can cause people to practically ignore massive wounds. Also the general health of the person plays a big role. There is a big difference between a 25 year old professional athlete and a 85 year old overweight person whose been going through chemotherapy for the last 6 months.
 
It really is simple. It's not complicated. The number of shots it takes is the number of shots it takes that day. You'll find out the number at the end. The smallest cartridge I've seen give 100 percent 1 shot stops has been the 25mm out of the Bradley. Personally Ive seen the 50 BMG do it as well, but Ive heard 1st hand accounts of guys still fighting after limb hits.

A Boss of mine, he was an Army infantry man in the South Pacific. He was pre war Cavalry, enlistment due to be over Jan 1942. Guess what happened in 6 Dec 1941? His unit was on the first troop ship (actually a passenger liner) to Australia. He made it all they way through the war.

He told me, his unit was engaged in combat in the Philippines and he saw a Japanese Officer beating his samurai sword on a Sherman tank in anger and frustration ,as the turret gunner shot him with his 50 cal browning. Boss said, he actually saw chunks coming off the Officer. That was one angry and determined man. Maybe he thought he could climb up the tank and chop the crew to death, who knows, or maybe he knew his end had come, and was mad he had not killed more Americans.

I do know a first person Vietnam account. The Marine saw a Vietnamese man, in bamboo armor, charge a M60 machine gun, and use his bamboo spear to kill the gunner, before toppling over. That was a brave man, there was only one conclusion to his charge, and he did his best with his one and only life.
 
The article includes the following passage, which I take issue with for reasons stated below:

"FBI research, as well as accounts from such legendary gunfighters as William Fairbairn and Jim Cirillo, indicate even trained personnel hit their target two or three times for every ten rounds fired in a shootout. This suggests high magazine capacity is vital (Vail, FBI). Once the shooting starts, people fire as many times as they can as fast as they can, and people involved move in every conceivable direction. There is often little, if any, time to reload, so you’re stuck with however many rounds are in your gun at the moment."

For a civilian who is carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense purposes, it is highly unlikely that he will end up in a "shootout." To begin with, the objective for a civilian in a self-defense situation is to simply break contact and not close with the enemy. Getting into a gunfight is for soldiers or cops; not for me taking my family out to dinner or walking in a parking lot somewhere. The far more likely scenario is that the typical civilian might be forced to simply draw / display his firearm and not discharge it, which in almost all cases will be sufficient to dissuade the erstwhile assailant from further aggression. Obviously, the caliber of the firearm is irrelevant in that case. Next, if a civilian is forced to discharge his weapon, it better be in counter-ambush defensive mode and for the absolute minimum number of rounds because each shot has a lawsuit or criminal prosecution tied to it and unless you want to end up in jail or lose your nest-egg, you're just stupid if you end up in a "gunfight." Hence, any prudent self-defender is just not going to be blasting away spraying and praying, going through several magazines as fast as he can. Moreover, from the data I"ve seen, the typical self-defense shooting involves the defender firing 2-3 rounds in order to break contact -- not some crazy magazine dump. That leaves you in the position of having to live-out the adage that "marksmanship is king," as well as the scientific reality that greater kinetic energy delivered to vital targets results in greater potential incapacitating damage. In other words, it's .40 or .45 for me....

Good points! And so to keep round count down, a larger caliber is preferred.
 
Not unusual for folks to look at things from a perspective that supports their own confirmation bias. Consciously or unconsciously.

Planning for failure can also be intentional or unintentional.

Folks can attend all the training they can find, but that doesn't mean they've either learned the right lessons from it, or will be able to apply it under stress.

Time spent in training/practice can matter, but simply burning powder for the sake of being able to tell oneself that they're racking up round counts doesn't mean they're practicing the right things, or the right way. People can get 'better' at doing things wrong, too.

Don't expect significant differences when using any of the modern service/duty calibers, and you won't be disappointed.

Don't assume caliber offsets skillset or mindset. (Or mindset offsets caliber ... or skillset offsets mindset, etc.)

Don't assume high capacity will offset high numbers of misses ... and those misses are going to hit something/someone down range, which is another type of BAD.

Carry what you can use. If there's a difference among your different chosen guns regarding how well you can use the, under demanding conditions ... try to pick a point where you can recognize if diminishing returns suddenly occur.

I've known my fair share of guys & gals with whom I'd go through any Dark Doorway, even if they were only armed with an old S&W M10, or a .380 ... and I've known even more of them I'd not wish to cover me no matter if they were armed with high-cap pistols and carrying a dozen spare magazines.

You want to bet your life that gear will always make up for user shortcomings? Different strokes.

Real life - and Murphy - are always throwing us curve balls. The bat you choose may not mean the difference when you take your swing.

You don't have to convince others of your opinion and preference. You just have to hope that you're right, willing and able to stand if/when the time comes for you. ;)

In the meantime, enjoy your gun ownership and shooting hobby ... and train/practice like it may matter someday. Because it might. Probably not in the way any of us expect, though.
 
Here is the study the chart in OP came from:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

32 acp result based on 25 people shot versus 9mm with 456 people shot.

Lets look at a different piece of data:
32 acp % of people not incapacitated - 40%
9mm % of people not incapacitated - 13%
40 S&W % of people not incapacitated 13%
Now tie together the given accuracy rate of about 75% for those 3 calibers along with about 2 hits required to incapacitate.
Potential for having to fire 3 rounds to incapacitate one attacker and the odds of them not being incapacitated are higher with 32 acp.
Entertain the idea of having two attackers and using the data given that is possibly 6 rounds fired and a 40% chance attacker(s) is not incapacitated.

Lets see how 32 acp performs from a P32:
https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/the-best-32-acp-ammo-for-self-defense/
Fiocchi 73 gr. FMJ 16.8''/.31
Okay, now lets find a 9mm HP that penetrates at least 16.8'' like the 32 FMJ
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
Federal 124+P HST 18.3''/.66

Given equal or more penetration 9mm HST makes a hole double the size of 32 FMJ.

I had a Seecamp 32 acp in the 1990's and subsequently a P32 a few years later, so I can offer an objective opinion. ;)
Is there anywhere I'd prefer to defend myself with a Seecamp/ P32 rather than a 9mm Kahr PM9/CM9, Glock 43, Sig 365? No. Nope. No thanks.
Yes, but remember the pocket .32 acps have short barrels, shorter than virtually all 9 mm handguns. The 3-4 inch .32 acps, especially with hot Euro ammo probably are more effective than the p32. As much as 9mm, no. But many have said probably as good as .380
 
Here is the study the chart in OP came from:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

32 acp result based on 25 people shot versus 9mm with 456 people shot.

Lets look at a different piece of data:
32 acp % of people not incapacitated - 40%
9mm % of people not incapacitated - 13%
40 S&W % of people not incapacitated 13%
Now tie together the given accuracy rate of about 75% for those 3 calibers along with about 2 hits required to incapacitate.
Potential for having to fire 3 rounds to incapacitate one attacker and the odds of them not being incapacitated are higher with 32 acp.
Entertain the idea of having two attackers and using the data given that is possibly 6 rounds fired and a 40% chance attacker(s) is not incapacitated.

Lets see how 32 acp performs from a P32:
https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/the-best-32-acp-ammo-for-self-defense/
Fiocchi 73 gr. FMJ 16.8''/.31
Okay, now lets find a 9mm HP that penetrates at least 16.8'' like the 32 FMJ
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
Federal 124+P HST 18.3''/.66

Given equal or more penetration 9mm HST makes a hole double the size of 32 FMJ.

I had a Seecamp 32 acp in the 1990's and subsequently a P32 a few years later, so I can offer an objective opinion. ;)
Is there anywhere I'd prefer to defend myself with a Seecamp/ P32 rather than a 9mm Kahr PM9/CM9, Glock 43, Sig 365? No. Nope. No thanks.

Yes, but remember the pocket .32 acps have short barrels, shorter than virtually all 9 mm handguns. The 3-4 inch .32 acps, especially with hot Euro ammo probably are more effective than the p32. As much as 9mm, no. But many have said probably as good as .380

There is no Yes, but for me when it comes to carrying less than 9mm, as I said before:
"Is there anywhere I'd prefer to defend myself with a Seecamp/ P32 rather than a 9mm Kahr PM9/CM9, Glock 43, Sig 365? No. Nope. No thanks."

I'll generalize that, nowhere would I prefer to bet my life on 32 (any) than a 9mm.
If somebody(s) try to kill me at ______ (on a walk, at the store, checking the mail box) would I rather have a 9mm or 32 in my hand? 9mm - no contest.
Often when people advocate for marginal calibers I've learned its not about that they prefer the caliber, it is about how they prefer to dress.
Usually they don't just come out and say it though; they don't post, I'm unwilling to untuck my shirt, or wear a holster on belt. That doesn't get posted.;)
 
There is data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology. What all that shows with regard to self defense could be summarized as follows:

  1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.

  2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.

  3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.

  4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.

  5. And that's probably as good as we can do.

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

  • The goal is to stop the assailant.

  • There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:

    • psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."

    • massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function

    • breaking major skeletal support structures

    • damaging the central nervous system.

    Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.

    Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.

    Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.

    The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.

    So as a rule of thumb --

    • More holes are better than fewer holes.

    • Larger holes are better than smaller holes.

    • Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.

    • Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.

    • There are no magic bullets.

    • There are no guarantees.

  • With regard to the issue of psychological stops see

    • this study, entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates set out in the table headed "Here are the results."

      As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):
      Greg Ellifritz said:
      ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...

      In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

      • There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.

        • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.

        • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.

        • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.

        • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.

        • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.

      • The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.

        • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.

        • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate

      • And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.

      • From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.

    • Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:
      ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.

      The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....
    • And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":

      • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):
        In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

      • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):
        The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

      • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):
        Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

    And sometimes a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:
    ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....
 
There is no Yes, but for me when it comes to carrying less than 9mm, as I said before:
"Is there anywhere I'd prefer to defend myself with a Seecamp/ P32 rather than a 9mm Kahr PM9/CM9, Glock 43, Sig 365? No. Nope. No thanks."

I'll generalize that, nowhere would I prefer to bet my life on 32 (any) than a 9mm.
If somebody(s) try to kill me at ______ (on a walk, at the store, checking the mail box) would I rather have a 9mm or 32 in my hand? 9mm - no contest.
Often when people advocate for marginal calibers I've learned its not about that they prefer the caliber, it is about how they prefer to dress.
Usually they don't just come out and say it though; they don't post, I'm unwilling to untuck my shirt, or wear a holster on belt. That doesn't get posted.;)
True enough, and the more data I see about people not being stopped quickly despite multiple shots, the more I don't feel comfortable relying on small calibers.

But still, there is a place for micro pistols in NPE's or some dress, such as workout clothes etc. My gym shorts without a belt don't have a belt for a holster, nor do the same belt clips for IWB work well if at all.

Also try, putting even a 9 mm subcompact into tight gym short pockets with only small pockets, wearing a tshirt.
 
Last edited:
There is no Yes, but for me when it comes to carrying less than 9mm, as I said before:
"Is there anywhere I'd prefer to defend myself with a Seecamp/ P32 rather than a 9mm Kahr PM9/CM9, Glock 43, Sig 365? No. Nope. No thanks."

I'll generalize that, nowhere would I prefer to bet my life on 32 (any) than a 9mm.
If somebody(s) try to kill me at ______ (on a walk, at the store, checking the mail box) would I rather have a 9mm or 32 in my hand? 9mm - no contest.
Often when people advocate for marginal calibers I've learned its not about that they prefer the caliber, it is about how they prefer to dress.
Usually they don't just come out and say it though; they don't post, I'm unwilling to untuck my shirt, or wear a holster on belt. That doesn't get posted.;)

There’s no place I’d rather defend myself with a 9mm handgun than my 12 ga or my AR either. You seem to think that you are the only one who doesn’t compromise power for concealability. You are fooling yourself.
 
There’s no place I’d rather defend myself with a 9mm handgun than my 12 ga or my AR either. You seem to think that you are the only one who doesn’t compromise power for concealability. You are fooling yourself.

Argumentum ad absurdum.

Typical defensive sidearms tend to be readily concealable and carried without impeding one's daily activities. Rifles & shotguns are not.
 
It’s only a fallacy if it doesn’t apply. There are circumstances where a Glock 19 is impossible too. This is the point I was trying to make.

"Tend to be" is nowhere near the same thing as "always, every time, in all circumstances and under all conditions." Carrying the typical defensive sidearm is usually viable and reasonable. Carrying a rifle or shotgun is usually not. Therefore your argument is absurd. Therefore your argument is absurd
 
"Tend to be" is nowhere near the same thing as "always, every time, in all circumstances and under all conditions."

Are you arguing against my point, or CDW4ME’s point? Do you ever sacrifice firepower for concealability? Some here say that they always, every time, in all circumstances, and under all conditions carry nothing less than —————, as if they are the only one not sacrificing power for concealability. I sacrifice power for concealability every time I carry concealed-and I conceal a .45. So let’s get off our high horses and admit that we all make compromises.

In some situations, it absolutely cannot be noticed that I have an arm. I’d simply rather have a .32 than be unemployed. On those days, the shotgun stays in the truck.
 
True enough, and the more data I see about people not being stopped quickly despite multiple shots, the more I don't feel comfortable relying on small calibers.

But still, there is a place for micro pistols in NPE's or some dress, such as workout clothes etc. My gym shorts without a belt don't have a belt for a holster, nor do the same belt clips for IWB work well if at all.

Also try, putting even a 9 mm subcompact into tight gym short pockets with only small pockets, wearing a tshirt.

When wearing gym shorts (push mowing the yard, jogging) I have a Sig 365 in Smartcarry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top