.380?

You are right in that the ability to incapacitate is about equal. In this study, incapacite is not dead, it simply means the attacker stopped the attack.

From the article:

On average, how many rounds did it take for the person to stop his violent action or be incapacitated?
Click to expand...

What is telling in the smaller calibers is the percentage of people who were NOT incapacitated. The .32 caliber and smaller rounds have double the amount of attackers who failed to stop after the first hit.

.22 (short, long and long rifle)
# of people shot - 154
# of hits - 213
% of hits that were fatal - 34%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.38
% of people who were not incapacitated - 31%
One-shot-stop % - 31%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 60%
Click to expand...

.380 ACP
# of people shot - 85
# of hits - 150
% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.76
% of people who were not incapacitated - 16%
One-shot-stop % - 44%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 62%
Click to expand...

Some people will look at this data and say "He's telling us all to carry .22s". That's not true. Although this study showed that the percentages of people stopped with one shot are similar between almost all handgun cartridges, there's more to the story. 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.
Click to expand...

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

Accuracy doesn't explain it
Click to expand...

Accuracy is a base fundamental with every lethality study I have seen concluding the same thing. At close ranges, shot placement is much more important than caliber.

The failure to stop percentages I believe accurately show the trend. Even in Afghanistan, we experienced multiple instances of .22 caliber bullets (5.56mm) with good shot placement failing to stop an opponent.

Statistically, the sample size is very small in this study and your speculation is reasonable. One would be dismissing the data though based upon an assumption.

I think the author adequately address the issue:

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.
Click to expand...
 
Don't get bogged down in the ballistics data.
The 380 auto is a good self defense caliber for close range protection.
And we are talking close range protection here, so don't worry about the sights (or lack there of) either.
I would even recommend the generation 2 LCP (not the LCP II).
Even smaller and more pocket friendly than the LCP II, and the trigger is just fine...much better than the generation 1 LCP.

Besides, you're an avid jogger...
Shoot them 7 times in the legs then just out run them! ;-)
 
There's an old joke that everyone talks about .45's, 9mm, .40's, and .357 magnums....but everyone carries a .38 snubbie or a pocket .380! :p
 
I saw a fascinating FBI study on actual pistol engagements showing not much difference in 38 cal (.380, 9mm, 38 special) combat results. Now the results for 40, 44 and 45 cal and on up were markedly more lethal.

The most surprising thing for me was the 38 special performance, in that it was in the same results category as the .380 and 9mm. Go figure. Sorry I can't direct you to that report but Google it and I'm sure it will turn up.

I'm sure this is going to chap a lot of asses in the firearms community and maybe change a few minds. The recent popularity of .380 pistols may be vindicated.

OPPS: I saw the data here. Go back to post 14. Stupid ole me!
 
Last edited:
I like my bodyguard .380, I carry it many ways depending on weather IE: how I am dressed.
I like the belly band most of the time since I work in overalls most often on jobs and around the shop. I link the ankle carry for dress when I wear long pants. In the summer it's usually in a fanny pack.
But if I was to purchase another .380 it would be the Sig. Not cheap but very nice guns, easy to rack and what a .380 should be. I do have a Bersa Thunder though also in .380 but it's a little too large for pocket carry. It's nice on the belt.
 
I carry the Two. Better trigger. Slide Lock. Use defensive ammo like critical defense and you have a convincing and effective deterrent.

You have to practice with the two finger grip. If you pocket carry, which I do, the sleeve it comes with is usable. But requires wearing in and practice.

Very convenient and comfortable. Simple and reliable.
 
davidsog said:
My personal preference too. However I was rather surprised by the quantifiable data.
Click to expand...

In that data 32 acp has better actual incapacitated by one shot % than 9mm, 40, 45. Yea, right.
Common sense that a bigger hole more likely to generate desired result quicker than smaller hole in the same place.
 
I believe everyone should carry whatever they feel good about. I've found for me the smaller sized pocket guns are a bit snappy for their calibre but most times they're exactly what's needed for the situation. My normal EDC is a Beretta Nano, 9mm. When I'm on my MC I carry a Beretta 950 jetfire 25 auto that fits my pocket perfectly. It's what works at the time.
 
In that data 32 acp has better actual incapacitated by one shot % than 9mm, 40, 45. Yea, right.
Click to expand...

I would say read the article. Otherwise we are just going to keep reposting the same information, lol.
Incapacitated does not mean dead or even incapable of continued violence. It just means the attacker stopped the attack.

Most people do not like any bullet hole in their body.

That an attacker looked at the new hole in their skin, got mad about it, and continued their attack at double the rate of larger caliber rounds speaks volumes about the value of making a larger hole in the first place.
 
Last edited:
davidsog said:
I would say read the article. Otherwise we are just going to keep reposting the same information, lol.
Incapacitated does not mean dead or even incapable of continued violence. It just means the attacker stopped the attack.
Click to expand...

According to that data 32 acp > all other pistol calibers. LOL
Data says I'm doing it wrong carrying a Glock 21, better protected with Kel-Tec 32 :rolleyes:

Ellifritz_OneShot_Percent.png
 
Hole size means very little in the real world.
Outside of psychological stops, the only sure stop is a central nervous system shot. It really doesn't matter if the CNS shot is a .22 or a .45.
I know this is over most people's heads.

Bigger is better-but not very much better. ANY gun is better than no gun.
 
Based on the one shot chart you could draw the conclusion that it suggests .32 is the preferred caliber. That is not the conclusion of the study:

Some people will look at this data and say "He's telling us all to carry .22s". That's not true. Although this study showed that the percentages of people stopped with one shot are similar between almost all handgun cartridges, there's more to the story. 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.
Click to expand...

I do agree that having a gun is priority one and that there is little difference in service calbers. 380 is the smallest round I carry, but if I had a 6 shot revolver in. 327 mag I would sometimes carry it. 9 mm is my preferred EDC based on my experience and research. Knowing ones abilities and limitations with training and practice to minimize those limitations is the key.
 
the Greg Ellifritz study has been discussed in detail before in other threads. His statistics may be interesting reading, but that's about it.
 
Accuracy doesn't explain it
Click to expand...
Accuracy is a base fundamental with every lethality study I have seen concluding the same thing. At close ranges, shot placement is much more important than caliber.
Click to expand...
davidsog ---

You seem to like quoting snippets out-of-context. I referred to the high level of one-shot incapacitation rate for .22 caliber pistols (60%) but only 76% accuracy (torso or head shot). Larger calibers had a similar or higher accuracy rate but lower one shot incapacitation rate. For example, the .45 acp had an 85% accuracy rate but only a one-shot incapacitation rate of 51%. That indicates either one of three things to me. First, the data could be all screwed up. Second, describing accuracy as a hit to the torso or head is too broad to be useful. Assuming neither of these to be the case, then some other factor is at play and I hypothesized what one of those factors might be.

Now, explain to me how a smaller, less powerful caliber that is shot less accurately creates a higher one-shot incapacitation rate than a larger, more powerful caliber that is shot more accurately. One has to look at this sort of "study" with a critical eye.
 
Last edited:
Now, explain to me how a smaller, less powerful caliber that is shot less accurately creates a higher one-shot incapacitation rate than a larger, more powerful caliber that is shot more accurately. One has to look at this sort of "study" with a critical eye.
Click to expand...

It's been a while, but I did sit through the whole video. I believe that the statistics were based on actual cases, but the levels were based off the amount of cases per caliber. So since less cases involved .32 acp, but resulted in a higher rate for say 40 cases versus the 9mm which being a common caliber had many more case studies to affect the percentage. If that makes any sense to you.
 
I have 25-30 pistols in .380 caliber and normally carry a Sig 238 or Kimber micro 380. Before retirement carried a .380 as a back up to service pistol, I have utmost confidence in my pistols and if fired placement of shot is paramount.
 
It's been a while, but I did sit through the whole video. I believe that the statistics were based on actual cases, but the levels were based off the amount of cases per caliber. So since less cases involved .32 acp, but resulted in a higher rate for say 40 cases versus the 9mm which being a common caliber had many more case studies to affect the percentage. If that makes any sense to you
Click to expand...
If that's the explanation, that means the data is invalid; i.e., the sample is too small, in at least some calibers, to be meaningful. I don't have the background in statistics to go any further than that dubious observation. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top