georgehwbush
New member
and self/home defense is kind of like hunting dangerous game. if the first shot doesn't work the second shot may be theirs, and not yours.... just a thought.
One thing got me wondering, since we haven't lived in a society where single shot muzzleloaders are our primary means of self defense for nearly two centuries, why the concern with "one shot stops"????
The most legitimate reason is multiple target engagement. Home invaders generally have force of numbers to accomplish their deeds.
The idea is to try to cut down on the variables involved to try to make sense of the data. By looking at people only shot once, it supposedly maximizes any differences due to caliber and minimizes other effects.One thing got me wondering, since we haven't lived in a society where single shot muzzleloaders are our primary means of self defense for nearly two centuries, why the concern with "one shot stops"????
The problem is that people have been doing this kind of study for a long time and the results never seem show a clear winner amongst the service pistol calibers. At some point, it's time to stop picking the studies apart because we don't like the results and start thinking about why the results keep coming out the same...The comparison between calibers of the number of people shot in this study totally throws off it’s credibility.
You have to be careful about dismissing a "study" based on the results. Sometimes studies tell us things we did not expect, or things we don't initially believe. If you think about it, if studies always only told us what we expected, it would be pointless to do them.And the ranking of the .32 above so many good cartridges is ludicrous.
What's the guarantee you'll get a second shot?One thing got me wondering, since we haven't lived in a society where single shot muzzleloaders are our primary means of self defense for nearly two centuries, why the concern with "one shot stops"????
What's the guarantee you'll get a second shot?
well with pistols it would seem to be a moot point. from a long range perspective it's like white feather said "how many shots are you going to get?"
One should always be sure to include the possibility that there's not a problem with the results but with the expectations.But when there is a result far enough outside the expected, one need to find out why. Skewed data?? some factor(s) present that were not present in other findings??
What are the criteria and minimum acceptable performance for those? How do they balance against each other. For example, I believe most skilled shooters would have high proficiency with a 22LR and it is $3-$5 per 50 vs a 44 mag which many would have medium to low proficiency and $70 per 50. So we should all get 22’s?IMHO, the best caliber is whatever you can afford and can shoot proficiently.
The most important factor though is an operator of said firearm that can place shots into an assailant accurately under a high stress situation. A calm, resolute, good marksman with a .22 is more dangerous than a hysterical, person that never trains with their gun and has a 9mm or .45.
So my question is: With what pistol/caliber are you most likely to hit what you intend to hit?
And then there's the study that tells us something that's flat out wrong.You have to be careful about dismissing a "study" based on the results. Sometimes studies tell us things we did not expect, or things we don't initially believe.
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....
...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....
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.
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.
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....
... 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....
Hmmmmm.........and if you shoot the attacker five times with your .22 as he's shooting you once with his .45...........
You lose.
Why do we focus on the "one-shot stop?"
Yes.......although we should take care not to tar all research with the same brush as the "research" offered up in this thread.The point I'm trying to make is that studies should not be accepted as holy writ, at face value as accurate predictors of anything more than general trends and sometimes not even that.
Excellent. Can you provide some information about them?There are plenty of good studies around that give us good information.
If there really is a significant difference, why can't anyone make it show up when they analyze real world shootings?In the end, don't all the statistics boil down to 50/50? either it works, or it doesn't, and that depends on ALL the factors and varies, sometimes hugely between each individual shooting.
Amen Brother, preach the gospel.Excellent. Can you provide some information about them?
I've been interested in this topic for decades. I would love to see something that, based on the outcome of real-world shootings, points to a clear winner out of the service pistol performance class.
Urey Patrick's paper, back in 1989 contained an offhand statement suggesting that caliber differences might make a difference in the outcome of 1% of shootings. I thought that was interesting given the context of the paper. It's been a long time since I read that paper for the first time, and I've not seen anyone provide any data to contradict his offhand estimate. In fact, I think, if anything, he may have overestimated the effect...
Please note the emphasis in the statement--"based on the outcome of real-world shootings". It is critical. I'm well aware of the measurable/quantifiable differences in the various calibers, whether they are measured in penetration, expansion, momentum, energy, power factor, TKO, RII, etc., etc. Those are all interesting, but if it's not possible to show that those differences are having a significant effect on the outcome of real world shootings, they are meaningless.
What everyone really wants to know is how much of an advantage/disadvantage they will have in a gunfight based on the terminal performance of the service pistol caliber they choose compared to the other ones they could choose. That's where the rubber meets the road.
--Posted in the middle of an ongoing debate.That ends the debate.
First of all, my comments are about comparing the traditional service pistol calibers and the other calibers that fit into that general performance class. Clearly if one departs too far from that general range of performance, then caliber differences start to matter, although, even then, the differences can be less important than people typically assume.Just ask an experienced man...
I have to agree with John. You said there are plenty of good studies around that give us good information. Please share those studies with us.Just ask an experienced man if he'd rather go into a gunfight with a .45 or a .22 LR.
That ends the debate.
...I would love to see something that, based on the outcome of real-world shootings, points to a clear winner out of the service pistol performance class....