Pistol Caliber Effectiveness from a Medical Point of View

[Boncrayon]

I'd say minimum 9 mm, However, I think it's not so much the caliber, rather the type of ammo used in it. A ball type bullet can go right through parts of the body, whereas a specialty "knock-down/kill requires the bullet to open and doing its damage by the spinning motion to cut tissue. Others splinter in many directions that create a multiple organ trauma.

My ultimate CCW protection is the Hornidy Critical Duty which met all 12 requirements of the CIA. It will go through cloth and bone before opening in the chest cavity. The Critical Defense round only met 8 of CIA's requirements. I pray I never have to use it on my Critical Duty on another human, unless my live or innocents around be are under deadly attack!

NRA Certified Firearms Instructor / RSO
LA Wildlife & Fisheries Hunter Safety Instructor

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by GEARHEAD_ENG:

So I guess 1mm can make the all difference depending on how "close" the shot is.

Yes indeed.

In terms of terminal ballistics, the FBI puts penetration first in priority, and the states that all other things being equal, larger bullets have some advantage, not quantifiable, over smaller ones.

But given adequate penetration, the bullets must hit something vital, and that's where speed of fire becomes important.

The FBI, for whom the 10mm was originally developed, has concluded that when recent developments in projectile technology are considered, the 9mm is preferable to the .40.

The reasons are capacity and rapidity of controlled fire.

http://looserounds.com/2014/09/21/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/

I did very little in the way of research and objective analysis when I bought my .45 several years ago. I no longer carry it.

It does have the advantage of lower sound pressure.

 

[Grizz12]

If a person is found dead at the scene is the body still taken to the hospital?

My point is, how many GSW dont you see because they are already dead?

 

[Tin Foil]

origanally posted by OldMarksman
The FBI, for whom the 10mm was originally developed, has concluded that when recent developments in projectile technology are considered, the 9mm is preferable to the .40.

If we wanted to really get into it I think some would be surprised at how many bad people have been done away with the lowly .22.
But in keeping with the topic that you have brought up we have to try and understand Government bureaucracy. One of which is the FBI will never come out and tell you the reason is their agents cannot qualify with anything above a 9mm.

And the reason they can't is because for the most part the field agent are desk jockeys. Lawyers and accountants. In fact not since the incident down in Florida in 1986 do any field agents ever make a felony stop arrest again. It's all done by tactical now.

The .40 was a compromise between the 9mm and the 10mm. And the brass feel they will be less effective out in the streets with it.
Guess what, a 9mm won't help them either in real life situations, cause they are not practicing on their off time with that either.

Point is, we have to take and consider 'perspectives'. And it's far easier to get these agents through training using a 9mm. That doesn't mean the 9mm is not a viable defensive round, but a typical field agent for the FBI will never even face more than your typical civilian.
And if they do when they make their 911 call they got a posse coming, we in the civilian world are hoping it's under 30 minutes at the most. In critical mass scenario I'm not counting on that old wise tale of 'spray & pray' and hope luck is on your side and it hits something critical.

I want the threat stopped, I'm not concern if the round has the instant killing potential and often times that means shock before trauma.
The 9mm offers me very little over my even better controlled .38 special so why would I want to go with a 9mm. And I don't require 15-33 round mags to feel comfortable out here.

And if we want to throw numbers around we then look at what over 75% of major police depts carry and it ain't the 9mm. And when they do switch back to it it's because Glock or Sig dump some free guns onto them. It's all really about politics and cost savings. And the depts that allow a back-up will only carry a 9mm if they their primary is .40 or .45 cal. If their primary is 9mm their back-up sure as heck ain't a .380. At least with a good percentage of the cop stories I have heard about. Problem these street cops are having is many depts will not allow a back-up so they are force with a 9mm and mainly because the police depts got them free. And it doesn't cost the gun manufacture hardly anything but the marketing pr is priceless.

"well if the FBI is carrying it must be because it's the best"

 

[zincwarrior]

Help me out, whats the issue here. Shoot until the threat is stopped, or you are safe.

The best shots to stop the threat are to the CNS.

The best way to hit vitals or CNS to stop the threat is to practice.

 

[Grizz12]

If we wanted to really get into it I think some would be surprised at how many bad people have been done away with the lowly .22.

How many have been saved while using a lowly .22 in a defensive situation

I want the threat stopped, I'm not concern if the round has the instant killing potential and often times that means shock before trauma.
The 9mm offers me very little over my even better controlled .38 special so why would I want to go with a 9mm. And I don't require 15-33 round mags to feel comfortable out here.

Maybe if you are attacked by more than one BG you will be thinking that you want more than 6 rounds.

Problem these street cops are having is many depts will not allow a back-up so they are force with a 9mm and mainly because the police depts got them free. And it doesn't cost the gun manufacture hardly anything but the marketing pr is priceless.

Which police depts get their guns for free?

 

[Tin Foil]

Which police depts get their guns for free?

Better yet name one that hasn't who has a force over lets say 75 officers.
I'm just repeating what I have heard from 'real cops'. They are forced at times to carry what their depts say they will carry.

And I feel quite comfortable out here with my 10 round mags of .40 and my ever reliable .38 .

 

[Grizz12]

Better yet name one that hasn't who has a force over lets say 75 officers.
I'm just repeating what I have heard from 'real cops'. They are forced at times to carry what their septs say they will carry.

Albq. PD pays for their guns. I know because I was asked to bid on the sale when I had my FFL. Now you tell us which depts are getting them for free!

Whats wrong with the dept. saying which guns the officers need to carry? They tell them what uniform to wear and how to wear it? They tell them what vehicles to drive. They tell them how to conduct themselves while in uniform.

All officers carrying the same weapon is a good thing because parts can be purchased in bulk when servicing is required and more importantly, everyone will have the same training on the same weapons.

 

[Tin Foil]

Oh I agree, and that's where the manufactures make their real money. But lets try and understand something here. The cops carry guns like we carry them, to protect themselves, they are not carrying them to protect the public. Why should they be limited to what caliber they can carry because their dept's got a good deal on a Glock or a Sig.

And your NM is sort of weird State as it is with only allowing one gun per carry permit. Only State I know of that has that restriction. However NM is a beautiful State.
Good luck in your future gun sales to the police dept.

 

[Grizz12]

Oh I agree, and that's where the manufactures make their real money. But lets try and understand something here. The cops carry guns like we carry them, to protect themselves, they are not carrying them to protect the public. Why should they be limited to what caliber they can carry because their dept's got a good deal on a Glock or a Sig.

And your NM is sort of weird State as it is with only allowing one gun per carry permit. Only State I know of that has that restriction. However NM is a beautiful State.
Good luck in your future gun sales to the police dept.

What do you mean "that's where the manufactures make their real money."?

The cops job is to protect the public. They carry the guns to protect themselves which in turn will protect the public. Why do you believe they don't want to protect the public?

Each dept. will do their own testing on various weapons and calibers to determine which ones most meet their needs. The testers are always people within the dept. and sometimes people outside the dept. At time they will ask manufactures to come and do demos and maybe the dept. will get a gun or two for their own testing. But the decision on which ones to purchase will always fall back on the dept. which will compare quality, usability and price when making the final decision.

I don't have my ffl any longer but thanks for the good wishes

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Tin Foil:

But in keeping with the topic that you have brought up we have to try and understand Government bureaucracy. One of which is the FBI will never come out and tell you the reason is their agents cannot qualify with anything above a 9mm.

"Qualify"? Really?

You have missed the point. Anyone, however practiced, can shoot a 9mm faster with combat accuracy faster than a .40. Simple Newtonian physics.

... for the most part the field agent are desk jockeys. Lawyers and accountants. In fact not since the incident down in Florida in 1986 do any field agents ever make a felony stop arrest again. It's all done by tactical now.

That is true, but FBI recommendations are intended also for municipal police departments.

The .40 was a compromise between the 9mm and the 10mm.

Yes, developed in an earlier era.

The .40 S&W was first produced in 1990. The Winchester PDX-1 round with bonded bullets was introduced in 2012.

I want the threat stopped,...

That's the objective..

And if we want to throw numbers around we then look at what over 75% of major police depts carry and it ain't the 9mm.

Yes, at one time, the .40 was considered superior. But recent bullet developments have closed the gap.

 

[44 AMP]

First off, discussions about how to carry, what to carry, what the police use, and what the FBI recommends TODAY, etc., are off topic to the OP.

Based on what he's seen, the OP's premise is that there is little or no practical difference in effectiveness of common handgun rounds, from a medical point of view...

While I find data on the results of gunshots interesting, the docs only see the results that are brought to them. AFTER the fight is OVER. An opinion based on ER or autopsy experience can only infer (assume) what happened during the actual shooting.

I believe it is also a false path to rate any handgun round by how often it "kills".

Likewise, I think it foolish to believe that "if you get to the ER with a heartbeat you are going to make it". And I don't care if the current statistic is 90%. Wonderful, unless you happen to be one of the 10%. And the odds of you being one of the 10% is essentially, 50%.

What the FBI says is "best" or "required" seems only slightly less changeable than the weather.

In 1986, they said the 9mm was good enough. Then, after Miami, it wasn't. Now, it is, again.

Take a look at the Miami shootout. The approved 9mm round failed to STOP the attacker before he killed and wounded several agents. But, it was a fatal wound, according to numerous opinions. The FBI needed a scapegoat, and what they chose was the "failure" of the 9mm. NOT the failure of their agent(s) to shoot well enough to instantly stop the attacker.

WHEN (not if) the new improved, approved 9mm bullets fail in the bureaucrats eyes, you will see the whole process repeated.

There is a lot more, but it, too, is off topic...

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 44 AMP:

An opinion based on ER or autopsy experience can only infer (assume) what happened during the actual shooting.

That bears repeating.

I believe it is also a false path to rate any handgun round by how often it "kills".

So do I.

I also believe that terminal ballistics--the effect of any one bullet in whatever medium--constitutes only one aspect.

But it is an important aspect. The OP opined "If a projectile is placed correctly it can incapacitate or kill its target. This includes ANY projectile." "Can" may be the operative word. But in reality, if that projectile cannot penetrate far enough to do damage, it just won't suffice for defensive purposes, for anything other than a psychological stop.

When one takes into account the first comment about ER and autopsy results, combines that with the paucity of other data such as first-hand detailed records of shootings as they happened, and adds in the very few actual shootings that occur as compared to all of the variables, one will quickly conclude that the only reasonable way to evaluate "pistol caliber effectiveness" is to do some penetration testing, evaluate the various effects of wounds on the human body using a lot of medical judgment, and to look at how shooters handle different guns in realistic training scenarios.

And even then, the result will be laced with uncertainty.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

And there will always be uncertainty, as no two gunshot wounds (or individuals) are alike.

If I knew that I was going to have to shoot, I would want a very big gun! But, I don't want to carry a huge gun.
The odds being what they are, I choose to have a small gun and rely on it to increase my odds of survival. I'm sure a mathematician could figure the probabilities, but having ANY gun is 100% better than having no gun. Having a multiple shot gun increases your odds greatly. Having a large caliber gun increases your odds, but by how much in the real world?

 

[Tin Foil]

originally posted by Bill DeShivs
ANY gun is 100% better than having no gun. Having a multiple shot gun increases your odds greatly. Having a large caliber gun increases your odds, but by how much in the real world?

Valid point. I feel at the heart of the matter we think in terms of 'comfort level' as oppose to any quantum set of rules/theory's.
Interview 10 people in 10 different cities doing autopsy's and you will walk away even more confused because they generally report what caliber has been stolen the most. The real data comes from what those reports say about internal damage.

We just had a 72 year old sentence to 25 years for killing a 64 year old with a .380. The jury view it as excessive force and the Judge said because of State law he had no choice but to sentence him to the minimum.
I make this illustration because had he shot a 24 year old on an adrenalin rush of trying to rob you I doubt the jury would have looked at it the same way. Note how I didn't say a 24 year old on drugs. You don't need to be on drugs to survive a .380.

And my point is I'm not all that concern with a 64 year old bum rushing me. Yes they too can be dangerous but those odds are even less than dying in an elevator.

 

[Sharkbite]

The point is to not get hung up on what KILLS. The object is to STOP the attack as quickly as possible, thus limiting potential harm to self.

A pellet gun can kill. A bunch of folks have been killed with 22's and 25's.

What the OP is pointing out is that any bullet MUST damage critical organs to be effective. No caliber is likely to stop an attack with a non-critical hit.

All in all, i subscribe to the school of thought that says "put a bunch of holes in 'em as quickly as you can". This multiplies the chance of doing damage to a critical system. It multiplies the amout of blood loss, leading to hydraulic failure quicker and it multiplies the chance of one of my rounds hitting the spine.

My knife instructor describes wounds into 2 categories....timers and switches.

With guns, Thoracic cavity hits cause blood loss= timer. He is going down, just might take some time. A CNS hit is a switch= shuts him down now.

Yes, i know people have survived CNS hits, the percentage is SMALL. Godzilla might be real too....

 

[manta49]

My knife instructor describes wounds into 2 categories....timers and switches.

You have a knife instructor.

 

[1-DAB]

similar to Zorro's instructor "pointy end goes in the bad guy"

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Sharkbite:

All in all, i subscribe to the school of thought that says "put a bunch of holes in 'em as quickly as you can". This multiplies the chance of doing damage to a critical system.

I would be surprised if there are any recognized defensive pistol shooting trainers who would not agree with that.

 

[AK103K]

My knife instructor describes wounds into 2 categories....timers and switches.

Well put, but probably lost on most.