Best caliber for self defense

[Metric]

Personally, if I were branching out from 9mm, it wouldn't be to 40 or 45. All three are basic self-defense cartridges, and in that role they are all basically interchangeable. Branching out to 40 or 45 would do little except to add another, more expensive caliber that you have to stock and keep track of.

Personally, I would look to 22 or 10mm. Both add a dimension of "hunting and survival utility" beyond a pure self-defense tool. And they are both distinct enough from 9mm to give another level of shooting fun.

For pure self-defense, caliber matters less than you think:

 

[Pumpkin]

The comparison between calibers of the number of people shot in this study totally throws off it’s credibility.

 

[mehavey]

I think the best thing to say about the figures in the graph above is....
... they are so counterintuitive as to beg the question digging into comparative circumstances.

I'm not a big fan of 9mm.... but something's wrong in that comparison to lesser cartridges.

 

[Pumpkin]

I have never, thank God, have had to shoot another human.
I have however used my pistols on various forms of varmints (50 lbs and under) over the past 42 years and I can personally vouch for the difference in effectiveness between the 22lr and the 44mag.
The 22 is usually just enough while the 44 with a JHP hits like a neutron bomb yet the chart begs to differ.
And how cartridges like the 9mm, 40s&w and 45acp are rated so close to the 380 and under cartridges is ridiculous, sorry.
I would never recommend a pistol cartridge using the information from this study as my guide.

 

[The Verminator]

Personally, if I were branching out from 9mm, it wouldn't be to 40 or 45. All three are basic self-defense cartridges, and in that role they are all basically interchangeable. Branching out to 40 or 45 would do little except to add another, more expensive caliber that you have to stock and keep track of.

Personally, I would look to 22 or 10mm. Both add a dimension of "hunting and survival utility" beyond a pure self-defense tool. And they are both distinct enough from 9mm to give another level of shooting fun.

For pure self-defense, caliber matters less than you think:

The study is meaningless because it lumps together head shots and torso shots.

They should be separate studies as they are totally different outcomes.

And the ranking of the .32 above so many good cartridges is ludicrous.

 

[Metric]

The study is meaningless because it lumps together head shots and torso shots.

They should be separate studies as they are totally different outcomes.

And the ranking of the .32 above so many good cartridges is ludicrous.

The proper way to say it, imo, is that there are many, many more factors that are more important than caliber selection. So much so, that one can't even guess the caliber based on average results.

That's not a meaningless conclusion. In fact, it's quite an important revelation.

Shot placement would be one of those factors.

 

[The Verminator]

The proper way to say it, imo, is that there are many, many more factors that are more important than caliber selection. So much so, that one can't even guess the caliber based on average results.

That's not a meaningless conclusion. In fact, it's quite an important revelation.

Shot placement would be one of those factors.

No.

Giving a shot to the torso equal weight to a shot to the head is sheer fantasy.

Giving the .32 a higher ranking than the .357 magnum gets into the realm of lunacy.

 

[Metric]

The theory offered up in the study is that 9mm is over-represented in police shootings. And police are trained to keep shooting. Thus, even if one shot "would have been good enough" (if the cop stopped to evaluate the situation after one shot) the shootee is likely to end up with additional holes no matter what, driving down the "incapacitated by one shot" stat.

There are other stats in the study that aren't driven down in the same way.

But, it does underscore how "factors other than caliber" can be vastly more important to the average final outcome.

Assuming you are shooting a handgun caliber that reliably pokes a sufficiently deep hole in the target:
1) You are not entitled to a one-shot-stop, no matter what caliber you select.
2) You are not at an enormous disadvantage, either.
3) In self-defense, it is recommended that you put a hole through something the attacker urgently needs to be hole-free.

 

[Metric]

It's not a "rank" -- it's a statistical outcome from real-world shootings. Weird things happen, and the world is not obliged to make sense to us.

 

[The Verminator]

It's not a "rank" -- it's a statistical outcome from real-world shootings. Weird things happen, and the world is not obliged to make sense to us.

It's more like garbage in--garbage out.

It is a fatally flawed and unscientific effort from the beginning.

It concludes that a .32 is more likely to make a one shot stop than a .45 or a .357 Magnum or a .44 Magnum.

It fails to tell us if the bullet hit the head or the torso.

The poor fellow who gathered the info is obviously not using any valid scientific method.

 

[Metric]

For .32, I theorize an effect that is the reverse of the 9mm-effect postulated by Ellifritz. It would also tend to buff the .25's stats as well (but with .25 you're really toying with a possible failure of adequate penetration).

If you've just been shot by a 32, it was probably by a private citizen. You didn't expect him to be armed (he certainly didn't appear dressed for battle), but -- surprise! -- he was. You were expecting a sheep but ran into a sheepdog instead. And now you've been shot, as a consequence. Crap.

I propose that scenarios with "maximum surprise" of this kind are the most likely to abruptly change the mind of the attacker, after a single shot. And that kind of surprise is more likely to occur with mousegun calibers. They get a bump to the "psychological stop" mechanism, due to the likely nature of the shooting.

 

[Pumpkin]

To just list a particular cartridge without specifying which particular loading that’s offered for that cartridge is like saying a all new Mustangs no matter which model are faster than any new Camaro, again, no matter the model.
This would be a very short argument not based on any comparable facts.
The importance of shot placement is a no-brainer if you have any experience or knowledge of such things.

 

[Metric]

It's more like garbage in--garbage out.

It is a fatally flawed and unscientific effort from the beginning.

It concludes that a .32 is more likely to make a one shot stop than a .45 or a .357 Magnum or a .44 Magnum.

It fails to tell us if the bullet hit the head or the torso.

The poor fellow who gathered the info is obviously not using any valid scientific method.

It doesn't conclude anything. It's just a statistical record of what happened. I get that it's counterintuitive. Especially if you've been paying a whole lot of attention to hundredths of an inch of bullet expansion in gel tests. As some of us might be prone to doing.

I mean, how could reality not be paying attention to our extremely-careful bullet selection?

 

[The Verminator]

It doesn't conclude anything.

It DOES conclude something.

In his "Conclusion" section he says:

"Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important."

Bad advice.

Better advice: Folks, carry the most powerful round that you can shoot well enough to get center mass hits reliably at ten to twenty yards and carry the same gun so you can be totally familiar with it. Practice until you feel confident in your ability.

 

[Metric]

Yes, that line by Ellifritz is a respectable conclusion. My restatement: You can't make a reasonable guess at caliber based on the average results of shootings, so there must exist other factors at play that are far more important than caliber selection.

Nobody concluded that 44mag is blown away by 32acp for effectiveness against humans, even though 32acp has a shockingly good track record in that data set.

It's that any "edge" Dirty Harry might have over James Bond by virtue of caliber selection is dwarfed by other factors.

In the real world, it helps explain how folks like Mordechai Rachamim (Israeli sky marshal) could take his little Beretta 22 into battle against AK-weilding terrorists and emerge victorious on multiple occasions.

 

[44 AMP]

It's not a "rank" -- it's a statistical outcome from real-world shootings. Weird things happen, and the world is not obliged to make sense to us.

It is a rank, a horizontal row of items is a rank. Other than putting .25 before .22 it is also in ascending order, by size of round.

It is a statistical outcome of the data they chose to use.

I looked at the article, found the full data used as given to be somewhat interesting, and shows that the table posted here is valueless without explanation or background. I do not agree with the authors chosen parameters, and the way information is presented without explanation.

For example, he gives a percentage of one shot stop and a percentage of actual incapacitation from one torso or head hit. For the .32acp the one shot stop % is 40 but the "actual incapacitation" % is 72!!

I'm sure his math is sound, but as presented, no sound conclusions can be drawn without assuming things "not in evidence".

I don't know, because the author does not say, it doesn't seem to make sense, that the percent actually incapacitated is higher than the percent stopped.

UNLESS you realize that the percentages are of different things. WHAT things the percentages are of, is not clearly stated. Some appears self evident, some, not so much.

Say 40% are one shot stops. But 72% are "actually incapacitated". How can that be?? It COULD BE that 40% of the people shot were stopped, and 72% OF THE PEOPLE STOPPED were "actually incapacitated".

It could be something else, the author does not say. SO the table posted here is useless for drawing any valid conclusions other than its what the author's math came up with, the way he worked it.

Percentages and averages can be useful, can be statements of fact, but are not always valid indicators of anything other than the math used to create them.

Which is what I believe this table to be.

 

[Metric]

I agree that "actually incapacitated" was never clearly defined. I don't draw any conclusions from that number, for that reason.

However, stats like this are pretty well defined:

- On average, how many rounds did it take for the person to stop his violent action or be incapacitated? For this number, I included hits anywhere on the body. To be considered an immediate incapacitation, I used criteria similar to Marshall's. If the attacker was striking or shooting the victim, the round needed to immediately stop the attack without another blow being thrown or shot being fired. If the person shot was in the act of running (either towards or away from the shooter), he must have fallen to the ground within five feet.

The following stat is also pretty useful, and is probably a bit more in line with common intuition (mouse gun calibers don't do as well as service calibers and above, though the numbers again become indistinguishable above 380acp, until you get to rifle or shotgun):

- What percentage of people were not incapacitated no matter how many rounds hit them

My own conclusion is that caliber matters much less than I believed when I was a teenager. Putting a hole through something important is vastly more important than the size of the hole. I could always be wrong, but I don't think so.

 

[The Verminator]

In the real world, it helps explain how folks like Mordechai Rachamim (Israeli sky marshal) could take his little Beretta 22 into battle against AK-weilding terrorists and emerge victorious on multiple occasions.

I have to laugh.

Rachamim didn't choose to engage four heavily armed terrorists with his Beretta .22 LR........he HAD to.

That's the weapon that sky marshals are issued because their fights will happen in an airplane cabin and a larger weapon is likely to pierce the aircraft walls.

I only see two gunfights for him.......one a very close range head shot inside an aircraft when he was backed by Mossad agents and disguised as a mechanic and had advantage of surprise.

The other happened on the ground with four terrorists outside the plane. He was the only defender and had to leave the plane to engage them and keep them pinned down until help arrived a few minutes later.

He jumped out and intentionally drew their fire away from the aircraft and its passengers.

His initial shots hit their leader in the head and dropped him. He then exchanged fire and kept them busy--making them unable to move on the aircraft. Swiss police arrived in a couple of minutes.

He was a hero, though.......no doubt.

Have you seen pictures of him? He looks exactly like a James Bond movie actor would look.

But.........you can be sure that as he left that plane to engage.........he was wishing he had an AK-47 or at least an Uzi.

 

[Metric]

I doubt the sky marshals were under any illusions about the nature of their enemy.

One of those confrontations involved quite a bit of planning and assembly of a team. Rachamim was called out of a university class to join the team, if I remember correctly -- he stopped at his house to pick up his 22 on the way.

I mean, the whole story sounds crazy to the modern mindset where we're used to teasing apart the relative merits of Gold Dot vs HST and +p vs +p+.

Sometimes it's refreshing to see what can be achieved with a different mindset.

 

[mehavey]

Here's the kind of things the "skews the numbers" . . . .
https://www.aol.com/news/man-shot-13-times-chicago-204357864.html