When Does a .380 Beat a 9mm? Good article

[fastbolt]

Unless someone were personally present for the alleged Strausborg Tests, I'd be more than a little reluctant to base my own decision-making on the "results". In one sense, it might be fair to say the purported, but unsubstantiated, goat testing is kind of like the MJ12 or Roswell papers for UFO enthusiasts. True believers abound, though.

While we may someday come up with a better tissue simulant than 10% ordinance gel (for handguns, and 20% for rifles), in the meantime it's been shown that a correlation has been observed between the results in gel and those observed in actual shootings. To a degree. Enough to use it for development and testing to a certain degree.

Now, obviously static gel simulant results can't predict the reaction of live flesh, meaning when critical tissues, structures and organs are struck. Nor can it predict the reaction of a live animal or human suffering gunshot injuries.

In the meantime, perhaps time spent chasing some will 'o the wisp masquerading as "ballistic performance" might be better spent developing a sound skillset; becoming properly familiar with any equipment owned (weapon, holster/carry method, etc); understanding the importance of cultivating a proper mindset; learning the relevant laws involved in defense of self (or an innocent 3rd party), etc.

The premise of this thread was simply considering some relative comparison of the .380 ACP and 9mm cartridges in their roles as dedicated defensive calibers.

Obviously, as this thread has illustrated, that subject entails more than a simple "ballistics" comparison.

If I were once again going through dark doorways into unknown situations, but with a reasonable suspicion that I and my partner were probably going into Harm's Way ... I'd obviously prefer that both of us were armed with 9mm's instead of .380's ... (presuming the circumstances weren't such that we were able to justify taking shotguns or rifles with us, in the first place, instead of having to just rely on low-powered duty handguns).

Situational context. It matters, and can change how we look at our decisions. Foresight is usually considered more advantageous than hindsight, at least in surviving an incident when things have become fast, fuzzy and chaotic.

FWIW, for today's outings taking family members places, I decided it was appropriate to pocket-holster my LCP, instead of one of my J's (or wearing the cover garments needed to effectively conceal a belt gun during my planned activities).

Doesn't mean I think my .380 LCP is "more effective" than any of my 9's. It's what I'll have with me, though, and I've done my fair share of qualifying with it and running it through fast-paced training drills.

 

[TestPilot]

THIS TABLE IS PRACTICALLY MEANINGLESS.

First of all, "Average number rounds until incapacitation" can be a misleading title. All this person did was divide the total hits by numer of person shot.

How did the person who made this determine which shot incapactated the person who was shot? A person who got shot 10 times actually may have been incapacitated by the first round.

Also, I have a pretty good idea why the table indicates more number of hits per incapacitation for major caliber rounds compared to 380ACP.

It is lot more easier to get multiple hits with M&P9 or Glock 17 than with a Bodyguard 380ACP. So, the people got shot more number of times with those 9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP pistols.

That does not mean 9mm,40S&W was less effective than a 380ACP. People just got shot more number of times with those calibers, even if those rounds were more effective, just because it was fired out of a pistol that is easier to get rapid fire hits with.

Let's say Russia made a missile with 70% probability of kill / missile and fires one missle per target. They get 70% kill per missle rate. Now U.S. made a missile with 90% probability of kill / missile, and fires two missiles per target. The American missile gets 50% kill per missile rate.

 

[C0untZer0]

I'm surprised more people don't call Ellifritz out for his nonsensical definitions. I'm just guessing that there aren't very many people in the gun community who are proficient at math, statistics and predictive modeling.

It is bad enough that a venue published his "findings", but it is really disappointing that other gun writers are referencing Ellifritz in their articles.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. Gun magazines for many years published charts with fine sounding names like Relative Incapacitation Index, Energy Transfer, Knock Out Factor and the like. There was no stopping them. The authors couldn't understand how real world results didn't correlate with the charts but they lacked the scientific mind to challenge the hypothesis. So for many years the indices were published, referenced and republished where the very cycle of having the charts referenced gave the charts credibility in the eyes of the readers.

Cunningham says in his opening paragraph that there is an arbitrary threshold below which a caliber is not suitable to self defense. Then he picks the 380 ACP to write about because it s the most commonly carried non-major caliber?

Without using Ellifritz's "study" all of Cunningham's arguments can be used to advocate the .32 ACP He uses Ellifritz's study to say:

the difference between the .380 and the .40 S&W, to pick one at random, is less than the difference between the .380 and the .32 ACP.

So this is the basis for the argument "When Does a .380 Beat a 9mm?" It is also the basis for discrediting the arguments:

When Does a .32 Beat a 9mm?

When Does a .32 Beat a 380?

I understand the logic of the argument that controllability allows a defender to deliver more rounds more accurately. The logic stands on its own. I think Cunningham made a mistake when he used Ellifritz's study as part of his argument.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

THIS TABLE IS PRACTICALLY MEANINGLESS

Not meaningless. It has meaning. You just choose to say that the value of the information shown isn't useful or meaningful to you.

I found it interesting that of the rounds shown in that abbreviated table , the 380 round had the worst (highest) failure to incapacitate rate. While it's not shown in the table posted, I found it interesting (meaningful?) that the .357 Magnum had the BEST (i.e., lowest) failure to incapacitate rate rate (8%) of all, lower even than shotguns (12%) or rifles (9%)! Nobody seemed to question that finding. Lot of picking and choosing in the the critiques.

I agree that the caption "NUMBER OF ROUNDS TO INCAPACITATION" is misleading, but Ellifritz addresses that directly and makes the same point you made -- that 9mm guns, are easier to fire rapidly than some of the other guns. Even Ellifritz doesn't try to make chicken salad out of chicken crap. He also includes ALL ROUNDS FIRED in this calculations -- including the ones that went astray, which is not the case with some of the other calculations. You might consider that arbitrary, but he explains it. He just says we've got a mess and you should under4stand why it looks so messy.

The ACCURACY stat suggests that people seem to be pretty accurate accurate without regard to caliber -- with only about 25% of shots not hitting the head or torso. (.25 ACP was noticeably lower than the rest.) The fact that .45 ACP shooters do a bit better is also not hard to believe; I only to watch my friends shoot. I don't have any friends who shoot .44 Magnum, but in the results of the Ellifritz study, they do well too.

The ONE-SHOT STOP PERCENTAGE was badly named, but Ellifritz explains how it was calculated. Only confrontations that resulted in incapacitations were included in this number, and only only head/torso shots were included in calculating the percentage. So it's a distinctly different type of calculation than the earlier incapacitation calculations, and measures a smaller subset of the total confrontations. A better/different title might have elicited fewer screams from some of the critics here. It might be interesting to know how many of the shootings in this category resulted in fatalities -- which is different than trying to determine how many of the SHOTS were "fatal shots" -- that arguably requires a forensic pathologist's analysis. (And, s has been noted in this and other discussions, just because you shoot the other guy and he dies, that doesn't mean he can't do you grave harm - or kill you - before he gives up the fight.)

Part of the criticism of the Ellifritz study comes from the terms and titles used. Clean that up and the study may still seem inadequate to many here, but some of the criticism goes away.

Let's say Russia made a missile with 70% probability of kill / missile and fires one missle per target. They get 70% kill per missle rate. Now U.S. made a missile with 90% probability of kill / missile, and fires two missiles per target. The American missile gets 50% kill per missile rate.

I don't really think this has much to do with our discussion. I would note, however, that sending two missiles to one target changes the nature of the analysis.

U.S. missiles with a 90% hit rate would hit 9 of 10 targets. The Russians will only hit 7 of 10 targets. If the U.S. chose to send two missiles to a single target, the results are much different and how you calculate success rates are different, too.

When one missile hits, the target is still 100% destroyed, not 90%. If two hit the same target, the target wouldn't be 90% destroyed or 180% destroyed -- it would still be 100% destroyed. Post-strike analysis, if there's anyone left to do it, would show that the target was 100% destroyed. Any surviving analysts wouldn't argue that both missiles were only 50% effective. They MIGHT count the number of missiles used to destroy the target, however -- as was the case with the 9mm rounds cited above. They might, like Ellifritz, say that the extra shot(s) probably weren't needed, but it would be hard to know for sure and that point must remain moot. (At one time, a lot of LEOs were taught to fire twice and assess. Nowadays, almost everyone is told to fire until the threat has stopped. That messes up some of these analyses.)

Two missiles against one target skews analysis. I'm a poor statistician, but for a series like this I think you calculate the likely failure rate of any one instance and multiply it by the likely failure rate in the next instance -- in this case of the U.S. missiles, 10% times 10% -- or 1%. You then subtract that from the number of events (targets in this case) or 1-.01, to get the total likelihood of success of multiple missiles fired a one target. In this case of the U.S. missiles that would be .99 or 99%. Using that same two-missile approach, the Russians might have a 91% success rate -- a big improvement over 70%.

(The real statisticians here can correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

[el Godfather]

^The table show above some really interesting data which favors .380 for its being less on recoil I believe.

I wonder how will 9mmMak fare in this comparison??

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

I thought the Ellifritz study is interesting if only for the data accumulated....being a technician and troubleshooter for 41 years, I adore tables of "just the facts" and feel that this study went south and compromised it's own credibility when he says that "everyone knows this can't be right" even though he accumulated hard numbers that he was initially presenting as cold hard statistics and accumulated data.

It ruins it for me when someone collects data and then "interprets" it in a subjective way because the accumulated data does not present the picture in the way that the researcher knows the facts/truth really is. I'm always irked when weather guys or news folks do the same thing - they interpret the information and tell me what it means.

Please just present what you accumulated and color it as little as possible. I'll decide for myself the relevance and draw my own conclusions but if a researcher twists and subjectively draws conclusions that are convolutions of the hard data I immediately begin to wonder just how much "fudging" really was included in "The Facts". I have said so on this study in the past and was shouted down so fast I just shrugged my shoulders and filed this report with many others. It's just data - no conclusions can really be drawn accurately. I like the initial tables and charts and all the extra verbiage and interpretation of what it "really means" is opinion to a high degree. I happen to agree with his conclusions...just not how he came to them.

VooDoo

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I adore tables of "just the facts" and feel that this study went south and compromised it's own credibility when he says that "everyone knows this can't be right" even though he accumulated hard numbers that he was initially presenting as cold hard statistics and accumulated data.

So, is there some reason that YOU can't just look at the data and ignore the comments? Do those comments change the data? In a few cases, I think the comments give us reasons to be concerned about the the significance of data that might not be as "cold and hard" as is seems..

I had greater problems with what he CALLED some of his categories -- but he describes what they meant and how the results were derived. (I also suspect he could rework some of his calculations from data retained, if necessary.) Some here seemed to ignore the explanations and got hung up on those arguably misleading/confusing captions. I think his commentary was simply an effort to give some of us readers a little help.

Ellifritz, for examle, talks about the statistical significance of some of this findings ,and suggests we "view with suspicion" (i.e., not place too much confidence in) the .24, .32, and .44 results. Should he have been silent on that point? When he said, "I really don't believe that a .32 ACP incapacitates people at a higher rate than the .45 ACP," he seemed to be talking as a statistician, not as an analyst -- and saying the data may not be adequate to give a true picture of round performance. If someone is not into statistical analysis -- you may be -- that's an important comment.

He also notes that the majority of the shootings did not involve shots through intermediate barriers, cover, or heavy clothing... That's important info and you can't tell that from looking at the data alone. Was he wrong to make the statement that larger, more powerful rounds might be more effective when barriers or heavy clothing are involved? Perhaps. It was a variable not addressed that will be encountred in some real-world shootings. The evaluation of rounds fired into FBI Ballistic Gelatin doesn't always address such impediments either.

 

[Nom de Forum]

After 207 posts nothing in this thread has convinced me that a .380 with appropriate ammunition is not at the very least a good choice for self-defense with a pistol even if it is far from being one of the best possible choices. In a pocket pistol the .380 moves much closer to being one of the best possible choices.

Now if we want to shake-up the hornet's nest we debate .32acp versus .380acp in pocket pistols. I imagine Voodoo da Vinci may have some experience comparing these two calibers and the pros and cons of each.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Walt Sherrill:

He also notes that the majority of the shootings did not involve shots through intermediate barriers, cover, or heavy clothing... That's important info and you can't tell that from looking at the data alone. Was he wrong to make the statement that larger, more powerful rounds might be more effective when barriers or heavy clothing are involved? Perhaps. It was a variable not addressed that will be encountred in some real-world shootings. The evaluation of rounds fired into FBI Ballistic Gelatin don't always address such impediments either.

Some evaluations may not, but the FBI Testing Protocol includes firing into not only bare calibrated ballistic gel, but into gel covered with fabric and behind steel, glass, and other barriers.

I think that one can expect most assailants to be wearing several layers of clothing at this time of year.

If the round does in fact meet FBI standards with the barrel length being used, and if the defender can hit with it rapidly and will carry the firearm, it should do what is required of it.

One can find out whether different commercial rounds meet the standard. The rest is up to the shooter to evaluate.

Most good SD trainers advise against bringing a pocket gun to class, but some will allow it. People who do try will usually rethink their ways after an hour of training.

I have no problem whatsoever carrying a single column 9MM with a four inch barrel--all the time. I carry high-quality amnunition with bonded 124 grain bullets. I know people who carry bigger guns.

Getting back to the promise of the thread, if I had to carry a subcompact, I would most likely select a good .380 over a 9MM, for the reasons outlined in the article linked in the OP..

But I do not have to.

 

[herrwalther]

If you just want to be disagree, go ahead. But respond to what I write and not YOUR VERSION of what was written.

I won't quote your whole response but will respond accordingly.

As you, and others have pointed out there are plenty of issues with ballistic gel testing when evaluating the performance of rounds through tissues with different densities such as bone, muscle, blood vessels etc. Upgrades to this testing would introduce more variables than it would solve. In order to counteract said variables others would have to be reduced. Say for example we could create 10 perfect torso replicas, everything working like a real human body, cost not being a factor. Muscle tension from endorphins, blood flow from adrenaline, good bone density from a good diet. Everything. And those 10 were identical to each other. To counteract all those variables, you would need robots and computers to perfectly place the test barrel and target to recreate distance, angle, and other variables that would effect how that bullet performed. Even with the advanced test torsos, it is nearly impossible to recreate and reliably test bullet performance. It is basically the Scientific method. If you want to solve a problem of bullet performance, eliminate all other variables so the test is internally verifiable and CAN be repeated. Bone is a variable. Muscle is a variable. etc

Ballistic gel is relatively cheap. And it is easy to calibrate for uniform density. That is why it is used. Do bullet companies, the FBI, and IWBA know it isn't ideal? Yeah, or at least I hope they do. But our modern day gel is the only way (currently) to make bullet performance quantitative. You can test a bullet and give it a solid number of X inches penetration, X inches of expansion without needing to ask "Did it go through a rib bone" How about a thigh bone? Or a skull?

Swine tissue is not all that different from human tissue. Biologically, humans are nothing special that evolution hasn't formed. Our skin or tissues are not drastically different from pigs or other mammals. There are even medical procedures where animal parts can be used in lieu of human tissue such as bovine vessel or valve grafts.

 

[F-111 John]

When Does a .380 Beat a 9mm?

When my wife is shooting the .380 and I'm shoot the 9mm... :banghead:

 

[Kleanbore]

@herrwalther:

Your argument is persuasive.

 

[Gun Master]

In the words of the immortal Joe Friday, " I just want the facts, 'Mam ."

 

[Walt Sherrill]

As you, and others have pointed out there are plenty of issues with ballistic gel testing when evaluating the performance of rounds through tissues with different densities such as bone, muscle, blood vessels etc. Upgrades to this testing would introduce more variables than it would solve.

First you disagree with me for saying, in effect, the same thing you say. Now you tell us that upgrades to Ballistic Gel Testing would introduce more variables than it would solve. We must accept this because you tell us it so?

If the gel used today is a simulation of tissue, it might be possible to create other simulations that can serve as bone and organ proxies, too. Done properly, such changes could be done with results that are just as "scientific" as gel alone.

Gel ballistics testing is used because it is the best we currently have.

And you seem to believe there are no options and no reasonable way to improve on the current approach.

I'll agree that some alternatives may be complex and make assessing results difficult -- but we don't have to make it more complex than necessary... Measuring penetration through different media isn't the same as trying to assess whether someone will be killed by a round.

Is there any reason that ballistic gel, with different type of bone proxies embedded (perhaps as flat sheets in some cases) could not be developed to assess how rounds might penetrate bone of different thicknesses/densities when in tissue? Is there a reason that other such proxies in combination with gel couldn't also be used to see what force is required to penetrate bone and vital organs, in different combinations? If we do this, we're just measuring how (or whether) things are penetrated (as with the Ballistic Gel version of human tissue); we're NOT trying to determine how the "proxy" might feel afterwards (were it really a human). If consistency is the concern, the media and how it's constructed could certainly be done to meet specific standards. As I said earlier -- that's what auto Crash Test Dummies do.

Shooting into a cadaver or actual tissue has infinite variables that effect bullet performance. Even if we started using goats for ballistics testing, every finite detail of their lives would be measured for consistency such as how much calcium they received which would effect their bone density ergo how bones in goat A affect a bullet compared to goat b. Gel ballistic testing is a benchmark for measurement. The FBI "standard" is 12-18" of penetration. So if the FBI receives a round from a company and it goes 4" the company has little leg to stand on if they say "Bone keeps it going in real tissue" "Blood increases its velocity" or some other nonsense.

You and Kleanbore continue to argue that because the body is so complex, we can't reasonably simulate the damage done to a body by bullets passing through the body -- the possibilities are almost infinite. I agree IF YOU'RE TRYING TO ASSESS WHETHER A GIVEN SHOT MIGHT BE FATAL OR SEVERELY DAMAGING! But, we don't need to measure how badly someone might be hurt by a given round -- we need to assess only whether a given round CAN pass through things that are equivalent to what it might encounter in the body (possibly in a worst-case scenario). The bone proxy doesn't necessarily have to look like a bone, but it does have to behave like bone when hit by a fired round. Whether it's behavior should be on the more or less resistant side is up to those creating the standards. If just measuring "tissue" penetration doesn't bother you -- you can't tell how badly a person is hurt by that approach -- why should measuring penetration in other human body part proxies cause concern? A block of gel that has X inches of tissue, a bone proxy (representing actually hitting a RIB, perhaps) a lung tissue proxy, more tissue, and the rear of the rib cage, might be a good simulation. If you think lungs aren't good, use a liver proxy, or something else.)

Establishing that "standardized bone proxy" may take a while, but the existence of FBI Ballistic Gel and its standards suggest that other standards for human body parts can also be created. Such tests might use several different bone proxies of different weights and densities, and include multiple rounds fired The testing medium doesn't have to look like a human being. You might, in other tests, add proxies for vital organs. The underlying premise is that IF you able to measure the ability to penetrate one type of tissue, you should be able to measure penetration of other TYPES of human material, and perhaps multiple types in a single process. The results of such measurements could be of value.

Once we come up with some meaningful standards for other human body part proxies, it may be possible to use other materials rather than gel. Perhaps screens with sensors behind layers of different materials, that measures bullet force as they pass thorough the materials and screens. Hook an array of screens to a computer system and it might be possible to measure things very precisely very quickly. And once that's done, it may be possible to create computer models that make physical testing needed less often.

The fact that the current testing method is consistent and cheap seem to be its principle virtues -- and you're content with things as they are.

Perhaps you're and Kleanbore are right, but I'm not convinced. The fact that the alternatives are complex and can be difficult isn't necessarily an insurmountable hurdle. My first mobile phone, not that many years ago, was the size of a small briefcase, and now my phone slips in my shirt pocket with room for one or two more... Progress does happen.

.

 

[herrwalther]

Is there any reason that ballistic gel, with different type of bone proxies embedded (perhaps as flat sheets in some cases) could not be developed to assess how rounds might penetrate bone of different thicknesses/densities when in tissue?

I actually like this idea. A material that has a density of the average human bone made of a single flat piece would eliminate some of the variables such as angle of bullet. Most of the bones in the abdomen are around the same uniform thickness, from the sternum to the ribs to the spine. So that could be a good improvement over the regular gel. Establishing a bone proxy would not take much actually. Medical science already has measurements of bone density to help determine what qualifies as osteoporosis and other degenerative bone diseases. The hard part would be replicating the hardness and density of bone in a cheap material. I am thinking some heavy ABS plastic might fit the bill.

My argument is not in favor of keeping ballistic gel testing as is, but what would be needed to be overcome to improve the testing ie variables.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Walt Sherrill:

You and Kleanbore continue to argue that because the body is so complex, we can't reasonably simulate the damage done to a body by bullets passing through the body -- the possibilities are almost infinite. I agree IF YOU'RE TRYING TO ASSESS WHETHER A GIVEN SHOT MIGHT BE FATAL OR SEVERELY DAMAGING! But, we don't need to measure how badly someone might be hurt by a given round --

I think I've said that a couple of times.

....we need to assess only whether a given round CAN pass through things that are equivalent to what it might encounter in the body (possibly in a worst-case scenario).

Well, almost. Actually, the first step is to assess the likely effects on ballistics that would result from the process of getting into the body in the first place. That means penetrating layers of clothing and skin, maybe breaking an arm bone or two, going out through the skin and clothing of that arm (that uses up a lot more kinetic energy than going in), and then entering the torso through clothing and skin.

The bone proxy doesn't necessarily have to look like a bone, but it does have to behave like bone when hit by a fired round. Whether it's behavior should be on the more or less resistant side is up to those creating the standards. If just measuring "tissue" penetration doesn't bother you -- you can't tell how badly a person is hurt by that approach -- why should measuring penetration in other human body part proxies cause concern? A block of gel that has X inches of tissue, a bone proxy (representing actually hitting a RIB, perhaps) a lung tissue proxy, more tissue, and the rear of the rib cage, might be a good simulation. If you think lungs aren't good, use a liver proxy, or something else.)

I'm sure that there have already been experiments performed in all kinds of media. The question is whether it would be worth the trouble to replace the standard testing protocol. Personally, I have my doubts, but some day we may see more tests added.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

....we need to assess only whether a given round CAN pass through things that are equivalent to what it might encounter in the body (possibly in a worst-case scenario).

Well, almost. Actually, the first step is to assess the likely effects on ballistics that would result from the process of getting into the body in the first place. That means penetrating layers of clothing and skin, maybe breaking an arm bone or two, going out through the skin and clothing of that arm (that uses up a lot more kinetic energy than going in), and then entering the torso through clothing and skin.

Agreed. I didn't include a complete list of the things that have to be taken into consideration before striking the test medium (such as layers of denim, other thin and thick fabric, intermediate barriers, etc.), but considered THAT to be understood -- as we've mentioned it throughout this discussion.

I'm sure that there have already been experiments performed in all kinds of media. The question is whether it would be worth the trouble to replace the standard testing protocol. Personally, I have my doubts, but some day we may see more tests added.

Maybe not worth the trouble, or so terribly expensive that only firms with deep pockets could do it... But technology has ways of lowering costs, over time. But, it is wholly reasonable for you to have your doubts...

 

[TestPilot]

I don't really think this has much to do with our discussion. I would note, however, that sending two missiles to one target changes the nature of the analysis.

U.S. missiles with a 90% hit rate would hit 9 of 10 targets. The Russians will only hit 7 of 10 targets. If the U.S. chose to send two missiles to a single target, the results are much different and how you calculate success rates are different, too.

Evidently you do not comprehend the concept of "probability of kill." I did not state "probability of hit."

When one missile hits, the target is still 100% destroyed, not 90%. If two hit the same target, the target wouldn't be 90% destroyed or 180% destroyed -- it would still be 100% destroyed.
Post-strike analysis, if there's anyone left to do it, would show that the target was 100% destroyed. Any surviving analysts wouldn't argue that both missiles were only 50% effective.

Evidently you do not know how missile works either.

Just like bullets have a probability of kill, missiles have probability of kill too.

Not all planes that get hit by a missile get shot down.


Applying this to bullet, it does not make sense to make any argument about "number of shots to incapacitation" when different number of hits are made with different calibers, when it cannot be proven that higher number of hits with a certain caliber means lower probablity of kill with that caliber.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Evidently you do not comprehend the concept of "probability of kill." I did not state "probability of hit."

That was my error, but the point I was making remains the same. You don't count two kills by two missiles on the same plane as two planes shot down. You're picking at nits for no good reason. If I had written "KILLS" instead of "HITS" would that have changed anything in terms of how YOU or I were measuring success? Two kills (if you're measuring kills) or two hits (if you're measuring hits) on the same target aren't rationally calculated as 50% for each bullet or missile used to make that hit/kill -- but the target is 100% accounted for.

Evidently you do not know how missile works either.

Actually, my military experience was mostly in the Strategic Air Command, and there hits by missiles (ICBMs, mostly), if it ever had come to that, would have probably been counted as kills. You seem to have been thinking Air-to-Air missiles. A hit there isn't always a kill. We came at this discussion with slightly different prejudices, but I don't think those prejudices (or slight semantic differences) really change the gist of what was being discussed. Swap my HITS for KILLS and see if the logic of what was said really changed.

Applying this to bullet, it does not make sense to make any argument about "number of shots to incapacitation" when different number of hits are made with different calibers, when it cannot be proven that higher number of hits with a certain caliber means lower probability of kill with that caliber.

Ellifritz, in effect, agrees with you. But until that particular piece of analysis was done, we couldn't know that it wasn't particularly revealing or of questionable value. Perhaps you didn't read the study itself and just looked at the charts? If so, you would have missed that observation. Maybe he should have omitted that part of the study, along with the comments shown below... Here's a link to the study: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power Another participant faulted Ellifritz for making such statements, preferring to see the raw data. I thought Ellifritz's comments were an effort to address the quirks of statistical analysis for those of us unfamiliar with that arcane art. (My professional career often had me surrounded and overwhelmed by data and statistics, and I had to rely on the wizards to tell my HOW GOOD the data was and what I could comfortably ignore.)

Ellifritz said -- with MY emphasis added:

"It is my personal belief that there really isn't much difference between each of these calibers. It is only the fact that some guns can be fired faster than others that causes the perceived difference in stopping power...it may have nothing to do with the stopping power of the round."​

He also said:

One other thing to look at is the 9mm data. A huge number (over half) of 9mm shootings involved ball ammo. I think that skewed the results of the study in a negative manner. One can reasonabl[y] expect that FMJ ammo will not stop as well as a state of the art expanding bullet. I personally believe that the 9mm is a better stopper than the numbers here indicate, but you can make that decision for yourself based on the data presented."​

As I said above, he thought it was flawed too -- but had that particular piece of analysis not be done, we wouldn't know that it was arguably irrelevant. He seems to think it's less meaningful than we should have expected. (That was probably made worse by the fact that the data for smaller calibers wouldn't let him expand the study to give results for FMJ as distinct from HP across all calibers and keep the numbers high enough for statistical relevance.) You saw a flaw in the chart or in his methodology. I think Ellifritz saw these issues as data artifacts:

An artifact is an erroneous value or data point which is not expected and does not correspond to part of the sample. They can occur for a range of reasons, normally related to how the study or analysis is run.​

I wish the database were larger. I'd like to see some changes in captions and titles. And if the some of the categories stay the same, make links to explanations easier to find. But I'm glad we have what we have and think it tells us some things we didn't know before, and confirms some things we thought were true, but weren't sure about.

 

[Gun Master]

Gel vs Wood

Personally, I can relate better to 7/8" pine boards than how much Jello a bullet can penetrate.

Comme ci comme ca.

 

[C0untZer0]

Now if we want to shake-up the hornet's nest we debate .32acp versus .380acp in pocket pistols. I imagine Voodoo da Vinci may have some experience comparing these two calibers and the pros and cons of each.

I don't think that is much of a stretch or departure from the OP, and it doesn't have to be the argument "when does 32 ACP beat 380 AUTO", the argument can be "when does 32 ACP beat 9mm", since Cunningham partially predicates his argument on Greg Ellifritz's study and according to Ellifritz the average number of rounds until incapacitation for the 32 caliber was less than 9mm, (1.52 rounds versus 2.45), and the one-shot-stop percentage, whatever that means, is higher for the 32 caliber than the 9mm (40% versus 34%), and the other figure, "% actually incapacitated by one shot - torso or head hit" is higher for 32 caliber than 9mm (72% versus 47%).

And Ellifritz in his article states:

Something else to look at here is the question of how fast can the rounds be fired out of each gun.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

BTW, the bullet that a coroner determined to be the primary cause of Michael Platt's death in the 1986 Miami shootout - was the 9mm Silvertip fired by agent Jerry Dove.

Yes, the much-maligned 9mm Silvertip, created a wound in Michael Lee Platt that the coroner determined Platt wouldn't have survived even if he'd received almost immediate medical attention.

Yet the bullet that STOPPED Platt was a .38 Special 158gr LSWCHP that disrupted his spinal cord.

 

[C0untZer0]

Yep ^

I was waiting for someone to say that

 

[t1210]

Brassfletcher has the results of test using a bone simulate in front of gel on his website under the different calibers. Almost all of the hollow points tested in .380, 9 mm and .45 failed to expand.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I am reminded, too, that FBI Ballistic Gelatin is meant to simulate swine TISSUE, not swine tissue and bone; and swine tissue is meant to simulate human tissue, and not human tissue and bone.

and…

FBI Ballistic Gel is meant to simulate swine tissue, not humn tissue and bone. (Swine tissue and human tissue seem to be very similar; but the physiology is clearly different.)

What rock have you been living under? It’s been almost 30 years since 10% ordnance gelatin has been adopted by both law enforcement and US military as the most realistic human soft tissue stimulant available. It’s been verified and validated against thousands of actual shooting events.

"One of the senior engineers at a very respected ammunition manufacturer has commented that handgun bullets that do well in 4LD testing have invariably worked well in actual OIS incidents. Most handgun bullets recovered from human tissue in surgery or at autopsy tend to look like those same type of projectiles after 4LD testing."

-- DocGKR (History of using layers of denim in ballistic testing? - http://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ing-layers-of-denim-in-balistic-testing/page2​

---------

The test of the wound profiles’ validity [as depicted in properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin] is how accurately they portray the projectile-tissue interaction observed in shots that penetrate the human body. Since most shots in the human body traverse various tissues, we would expect the wound profiles to vary somewhat, depending on the tissues traversed. However, the only radical departure has been found to occur when the projectile strikes bone: this predictably deforms the bullet more than soft tissue, reducing its overall penetration depth, and sometimes altering the angle of the projectile’s course. Shots traversing only soft tissues in humans have shown damage patterns of remarkably close approximation to the wound profiles [observed in properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin].

The bullet penetration depth comparison, as well as the similarity in bullet deformation and yaw patterns, between human soft tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin have proven to be consistent and reliable. Every time there appeared to be an inconsistency…a good reason was found and when the exact circumstances were matched, the results matched. The cases reported here comprise but a small fraction of the documented comparisons which have established 10% ordnance gelatin as a valid tissue simulant.

-- Martin L. Fackler, MD: “The Wound Profile & The Human Body: Damage Pattern Correlation". Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 1994; 12-19​

---------

When a bullet is penetrating any material (tissue, water, air, wood, etc.), the total force the bullet exerts on the material is the same as the total force the material exerts on the bullet (this is Newton’s Third Law of Motion). These forces may be represented as a combination of shear forces and inertial forces (don’t be concerned if these words sound too technical – the concepts are easy). Shear force may be thought of as the force that resists deformation; if you push on a wall you are creating shear forces in the wall material that resist your push. If you push your hand down very slowly on a water surface, you feel no resisting force; this is true because a liquid cannot support a shear force….

You can fan your hand back and forth in air quite rapidly because there seems to be no resistance, but a similar fanning motion cannot be done nearly as rapidly underwater because moving the water can take all the strength you can muster. The forces that resist the movement of your hand in water are inertial forces….

A bullet penetrating a soft solid (tissue or a tissue simulant like gelatin) meets resistance that is a combination of shear forces and inertial forces….

…Anyone who has worked with gelatin knows that a finger can be pushed into gelatin with a force of only a few pounds; this force is similar to the resistance to a finger poked into the stomach, but the tissue does not fracture as easily as gelatin does. A finger poked into water does not meet this kind of resistance, which is due to shear forces. Penetration of a 9mm bullet at 1000 ft/sec is resisted by an inertial force of about 800 pounds; it is obvious that the presence or absence of a 3 to 5 pound shear force makes no practical difference in the penetration at this velocity. This also explains why the fact that gelatin fractures more easily than tissue does is not important.

The extension of these dynamics to soft tissue variation is obvious. Different types of tissue present different resistance to finger probing by a surgeon, but the surgeon is not probing at 1000 ft/sec. Different tissue types do have differences in the amount of shear force they will support, but all of these forces are so small relative to inertial forces that there is no practical difference. The tissue types are closer to one another than they are to water, and bullet expansion in water and tissue are nearly identical at velocities over 600 ft/sec where all bullet expansion takes place (See Bullet Penetration for a detailed explanation of bullet expansion dynamics).

-- Duncan MacPherson, “Wound Ballistics Misconceptions.” Wound Ballistics Review, 2(3): 1996; 42-43 (see - http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm )​

------------

"Bullets that do well against bone generally fare well against automobile windshield intermediate barriers."

– DocGKR (Bullet performance against bone - http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?30556-Factoring-bone-into-the-equation​

The Strausborg Tests used almost 600 LIVE (large, 150-160 lb.) goats to evaluate handgun round performance…

“The Strasborg Tests” appears to be an elaborate hoax intended to dissuade law enforcement from the FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests. The alleged “findings” have been discredited by nearly 30 years of actual shooting data. The physical damage caused to tissues is what causes reliable physiological incapacitation – not some goofy unsupported theory about a blood pressure spike.

Brassfletcher has the results of test using a bone simulate in front of gel on his website under the different calibers. Almost all of the hollow points tested in .380, 9 mm and .45 failed to expand.

JHP handgun bullets are designed to expand in soft tissues. In a defensive shooting the kinds of tissues we’re trying to destroy are all soft tissues. These are reasons why bone isn’t normally used to test JHP bullet performance because: 1) JHP bullets aren’t designed to expand in bone – they just deform, and 2) the bullet’s terminal performance characteristics are entirely dependent on factors that cannot be controlled by the shooter (what bone is hit, where it is hit, angle of impact, depth of location along the wound track, bone density/thickness, etc.). The only terminal performance desired in bone, at least that I can think of, is for a bullet to blast through to reach vital tissues. Quite simply, performance in bone is what it is.​

-- Shawn Dodson http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm