An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

[JohnBiltz]

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

Over a 10-year period, I kept track of stopping power results from every shooting I could find. I talked to the participants of gunfights, read police reports, attended autopsies, and scoured the newspapers, magazines, and Internet for any reliable accounts of what happened to the human body when it was shot.

All I ask is read the whole thing before jumping to conclusions or commenting.

 

[fallingbird]

Interesting, to say the least. Why try to conceal that big iron when the Kel-Tec 32 is all you need?

 

[billymarr]

thank you good read

 

[Strykervet]

I'm still sticking with the 9mm being the smallest, with 10mm, .40 or .45ACP being preferred in auto. Simply because of this: if the shotgun or rifle is the best, and a bb gun the worst, then that means there is a variable scale, and since we know .45 is more powerful than .38, then we can assume that .45 is closer to the shotgun than .38 and therefore more desirable.

That is what I gather. He contradicts himself but I don't think he caught it.

The truth is there are too many variables to determine the perfect combination. That and handgun calibres are not all that different. It just makes sense to tote the biggest round you can accurately control that doesn't overpenetrate or otherwise put put the public in jeopardy.

I read a piece by a guy that worked in a morgue and he said that based on what he saw, that the .40 and .45 caused the most one shot victims.

Then I've seen folks revere the .357mag 125gr. out of a 4" and in the same breath put down the 9mm 124gr. +P 5". Ballistically, they are the same on target! If anything, the 9mm gives you two or three times the firepower!

Sometimes, I don't get it. So I stick with what I know. The 10mm has 10-15 rounds in a Glock, the velocity of the 9mm, bullet weight of a .45, and diameter in between. It has energy higher than both (sometimes put together) and a higher BC. I shoot 'em pretty well and I like the versatility of the loadings... I found my cartridge.

 

[Kingofthehill]

great post.. thanks for that.

very interesting

 

[481]

There was already a thread discussing the exact same article and author here...


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=604721


...about half way down the first page of this forum.

Didn't know if you saw it prior to posting this one.

 

[tipoc]

Yes and it's not the first.

The guys article has been making the rounds. Read it with a critical eye. I don't believe it holds up too well. But it's on the interenet so it must be true.

tipoc

 

[il_10]

Interesting article, but a few numbers look too unreasonable to be true.

One interesting bit, though, is the percentage of torso and head shots between the varying calibers. It appears that .357, .45, and .44 score higher, though I haven't run the numbers to see if that's a statistically significant "higher" or not. Especially with the small sample size for .44 mag. Still, there is a hint of suggestion there that people who carry the perceived "bigger" guns score better in firefights, which suggests that they are somehow more competent, be that through training, mindset, or whatever. Might there be a correlation between the caliber of gun one carries and that person's proficiency with a firearm in general?

 

[fasttheo]

Still, there is a hint of suggestion there that people who carry the perceived "bigger" guns score better in firefights, which suggests that they are somehow more competent, be that through training, mindset, or whatever. Might there be a correlation between the caliber of gun one carries and that person's proficiency with a firearm in general?

I think that's a fair question to ask. I know there are plenty of people here who own/carry a .25 ACP, but I wonder if the .25 data is skewed by the number of criminals using 'Saturday Night Specials'? If that is the case, I guess you could argue that those people wouldn't be as accurate as the typical CCW'er who practices with his/her weapon at the range on a regular basis.

Anyway, it's a great conversation starter, if nothing else. Who knew that my 380 would be a better stopper than a .44 Mag? Go ahead, make my day

 

[David Charlton]

Hi Friend,

My real point was that you can always find what you are looking for if you only use the info that supports your case and disregard the rest. I'd never use a shotgun for defending a home. Ever. It is possibly the worst idea the tactical people ever came up with and made the norm. Shot spread is nothing even with no chokes at distances within the home. With magnum rounds the steel still goes through wallsls.

Thanks a lot for your help!
David Charlton
____________
www.evike.com

 

[481]

Yes and it's not the first.

The guys article has been making the rounds. Read it with a critical eye. I don't believe it holds up too well. But it's on the interenet so it must be true.

tipoc

Yep, it has been making the rounds.

I am of the same mind as you, tipoc. The article seems to fail even the most basic academic scrutiny.

Everything on the 'net ain't true?

Next you'll tell me there ain't no Santa Claus.

 

[LibShooter]

Here are my takeaways: If there's trouble, ANY gun is way better than no gun. Some guns are a little bit better than others. Folks who use 9mm or .40 for self defense have large magazines and shoot a lot of rounds.

 

[harmon rabb]

cliff notes: 357 = winning. lol

 

[Shadowdancer]

The gun I'm the most accurate with (in defensive distances) is the Kimber Ultra CDP II. It conceals well, and being a .45... it would stop well. As far as the study is concerned... it looks like shooting someone is a good way to stop them.

 

[olafhardtB]

I love my S&W 317 even more!!!

 

[buckeye8]

I enjoyed the article. The author doesn't try to pass his information off as the be-all/end-all in the stopping power debate, so I don't understand why some of you are so harsh. Overall, it seems like a worthy contribution to The Great Handgun Caliber Debate.

If nothing else, the data seems to lend further validity to the always popular THR ethos that 'shot placement is king'. (Okay, penetration and shot placement are co-kings, or king and queen, or whatever you'd like). Either way, you'd think this would make his work better-received around here.

 

[tipoc]

oops

tipoc

 

[DWFan]

The single most important variable in handgun stopping ability always has been and always will be the ability of the shooter. It cannot be predicted as sometimes the best marksman in the world will miss and even the most inexperienced and inept shooter can get lucky. The other thing is this. No two identical bullets fired using identical powder charges from the same weapon will have the same size, shape or path of the trauma channel when they enter the body.
That's why I consider over-penetration more hype than reality. If the bullet does exit, and documented cases exist where some rifle calibers didn't, you have no idea exactly where or at what angle and a handgun cartridge that doesn't "over-penetrate" at 25-30 yards, probably will at 7-10 feet. Vice-versa, a cartridge that has adequate penetration at that 7-10 feet range, might not have enough at 25-30 yards. Again, you cannot predict the distance of a self defense scenario.
Anyone who's hunted for any length of time can tell you that no two animals react exactly the same even if hit in the same location. Some may drop on the spot while others run for a hundred yards even with virtually the same internal injuries. The same is true with a human being and combat injuries have documented that fact. You cannot predict your assailant's state of mind or physical condition.
Use what you are most accurate with and practice, practice, practice.

 

[gym]

I see that people who generally carry higher caliber, as "daily carry" weapons, are more likelly to practice with them. When you get past 357 mags. you are entering the realm of rifes, 44 mag and 10mm are not the norm for carry weapons. If more people carried them and trained with them, there would be a big change in those numbers. Unfortunatelly I always said that a 380, was as deadlly as a 9mm in a close combat scenario. I carried one for 20 years and saw very little difference in stopping power in the 5 to 25 foot range. Same with a 38, let's face it they all make the same size hole, 380, 38, 9mm. With modern ammo you can pick up the slack in any of them simply by using newer technology rounds. The difference is with the 357, to 38 as with the 223 compared to the 22, it's the amount of powder pushing that sucker to higher velocities causing that temp wound cavity, and shock to the body.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I don't know why people waste so much time pouring over anecdotal statistics. The ability of a handgun round to stop someone independent of shot placement and other variables that cannot be predicted is very simple math involving only two factors: Penetration depth and wound diameter.

You want the most effective cartridge? It's the one that drives the biggest bullet the deepest. Start with a larger diameter, use a good expanding bullet, and push it with enough force to get a through-and-through shot. The only thing can can absolutely be counted on is that a bigger hole will bleed more than a smaller one in the same location, and a bullet that goes deeper (or through) will be more effective than one that doesn't.

 

[Loosedhorse]

You want the most effective cartridge? It's the one that drives the biggest bullet the deepest.

Well that certainly would be the most effective...on whomever is standing behind your target!

One of the interesting findings in Marshall and Sanow's (ack! He actually said their names! Run!! ) stats was that, after a certain point, the deeper the bullet penetrated, the less effective it was. That's explainable in terms of smaller diameter (FMJs, JSPs, and poorly expanding HPs) having deeper penetration; and the good HPs producing a wider wound channel (MachIV's bigger bullet idea). But even the FBI is looking for finite (less than 18 inches) penetration, not "the deepest."

anecdotal statistics.

What is the other type of statistics, again? Each event is an anecdote; compile enough events and you have data...and you can do statistics on that.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Obviously, his analysis is wrong. Just a quick glance through the data show some ridiculous anomalies. For example, a .22 (from handgun or rifle) takes less number of rounds until incapacitation than a centerfire rifle or any other handgun round?

 

[Plan2Live]

I could drive a truck with 2 wheel drive and a 4 cylinder engine and be just fine 99% of the time. In that 1% scenario where I need 4 wheel drive, I could get by with a Subaru. I prefer to drive a true 4 wheel drive and a V8. If I'm not driving my V8 powered 4X4 then I am very aware of that fact and accordingly am very careful about where I go. That's personal preference. I think it's the same with caliber choices. I prefer a larger caliber over a smaller caliber simply becasue it makes me feel better.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Well that certainly would be the most effective...on whomever is standing behind your target!................. But even the FBI is looking for finite (less than 18 inches) penetration, not "the deepest."

I didn't say there was no potential downside to bullets passing completely through the target. I only said that where incapacitating a threat is concerned, a through hole is better than a not-through hole, and a bigger one is better than a smaller one.

Obviously, we have to consider the risks associated with overpenetration, as well as the problems with carrying handguns powerful enough to drive bullets expanded to 3/4"+ all the way through a human being. For most of us, we settle on one that'll drive bullets deep enough to get to the vitals and create a decent sized wound channel.

That said, just because it's generally impractical to carry something like a .44 mag with a 180 gr. JHP loaded to 1,700 FPS doesn't change the fact that a bigger and deeper hole will be more effective.

Each event is an anecdote; compile enough events and you have data...and you can do statistics on that.

Not when each event has so many variables that are unaccounted for and impossible to reproduce exactly. I think that point is made in his numbers reflecting absolute nonsense like they do. "Size doen't matter" is never true, not even when some poor sap's girlfriend tells him that to make him feel better.

 

[digsigs226]

You want the most effective cartridge? It's the one that drives the biggest bullet the deepest.

I really don't think really anybody is arguing that, including the author of this article. To me this article seeks to answer not "which is most effective" but "how different is their effectiveness." To that aim, I think it is a worthwhile read, because even with all the data he amassed, there really wasn't any one caliber that was more effective than another with any real statistical significance.

The takeaway? Carry the biggest caliber your comfortable with, and that includes carrying, shooting, and cost of training.