Pistol Caliber Effectiveness from a Medical Point of View

[Tin Foil]

I've always liked this test myself. Simple yet clearly indicative. Because it speaks to what so many get confused with, Stopping The Threat vs. Killing Someone.

https://youtu.be/4MPSDjJQIv4

This is where we who have firearms for protection against humans differ from those on a woods walk. Or we can also say the difference between hunters.

Somewhere along the line the meaning/idea got twisted and put forth and the internet helped perpetuate falsehoods and misconceptions about the roll of the firearm as a personal defense weapon.
Along came some who tried to use data gathered from so called experts and apply it in the civilian world while completely missing the fact either out of their own misunderstandings or outright distortions.

Because the role of the firearm among police forces are the same as it is among the civilian population. The roll of the firearm as a personal defense weapon is to Stop The Threat not kill someone.

These debates, these types of threads are all over the internet. On every gun forum, and the same conclusions are always met. Only some try to rap their points of view up as if it's anymore legitimate because it has a so called expert or entity behind it. And yet private test using the same criteria can show opposite points of view.

The question then becomes, "who's selling what and why".
I don't need any statistics from inside a lab or any so called expert claiming this, that or the other. And I certainly don't need the fear and hype being sold from the other camp.

Watch that demonstration again and pay close attention to it.
Remembering what your concept of personal protection is all about.
And there is no such thing as a 'one stop shot'. Like hand grenades and horseshoes if that happens it was more luck than anything else.

Shock to the body !
The 12 inch min. sold by certain groups is to account for heavy clothing and body mass. They teach central mass hits because it's the biggest target on a human body and moves less. Certainly makes sense.

Just try to understand this, Shock is what kills you.
The 1986 FBI shootout in Florida was a real eye opener, an eye opener for so many reasons. Two people with the understanding of how to fight, the will to fight, and as the autopsy showed not under the influence of anything but pure adrenalin.

While using the correct weapon system for that fight. Every wound they received up until the point blank shots to the head where survivable. Including the shotgun blast.
One can only image had those two been under the influence of hallucinogenics like PCP or Bath Salts what may have occurred.

These are the types who scare me the most, because they are extremely vicious as later was discovered in how many others they murdered. They had the same mentality as this older escape on the run has up in New York.
And I truly hope I myself never run across these types of people.

 

[Brit]

Having read all the posts, the original post being very interesting.

I will sum up my own take on the carrying of a pistol for defensive purposes.

First, more bullets are desirable, already in the pistol. My choice Glock 19 with 16 rounds, Ranger 147g none +p. Will penetrate well, recoil manageable, and recovered rounds are nasty! Sharp bits all over.

The gun and ammo can be carried always, and is. Not too big, not too heavy.

A spare magazine, from a Glock 17 gives an extra two rounds.

Said by someone else, "The only time extra ammunition is not good, is if you are on fire or drowning!"

Said by me, in the 1980s as a then Board Member of IALEFI, for 20 years.

When arguing with a died in the wool S&W Revolver fan.

MORE IS BETTER, ALWAYS! My Glock 17 comparison.

At 6 feet distance, center of face, further back, center of chest.

 

[Tin Foil]

MORE IS BETTER, ALWAYS!

But it's a false comfort zone and therein is the problem. And has the potential to get people killed.
And it's being sold all over the internet and it's simply a false doctrine.

FBI stats will clearly show it's over under 3 shots, in under 36 inches and less than 10 minutes. Anything beyond that and you are involved in a firefight.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Webleymkv:

However, you previously pointed out that there is no consensus as to why, or even if, one caliber is more effective than another.

More accurately, John pointed out that the best judgment today is that within the range of premium law enforcement cartridgedes from 9mm to .45, there is no significant difference in terms of terminal ballistics.

John used the term "typical service pistol caliber cartridges".

That most obviously not mean that a 2mm Kolibri pinfire would not be much, much less effective.

The supposed benefits of expanding ammunition are, as I understand them, reduced risk of overpenetration, more rapid transfer of energy, and/or increasing wound volume by increasing the diameter of the bullet.

Permanent wound channel.

Now, non-expanding bullets in small calibers such as .25 ACP 50 gr FMJ frequently penetrate to depths within the FBI's 12-18" window (Brassfetcher's testing shows .25 ACP FMJ's penetrating anywhere from 14.0-15.2" in 10% ballistic gelatin) so that would seem to address the overpenetration issue. As to the smaller diameter and lesser energy of a small caliber like .25 ACP, those are both attributes of which the effects cannot be measured or predicted as you yourself pointed out. So, by your own line of logic, would it not be wiser to select a smaller caliber since the increase in controllability is readily quantifiable while the decrease in terminal effect (if any) is not?

No, no, no.

If John rules out the .380, one can pretty well assume that he rules out the .25.

Even if we use wound volume as our yardstick (which you yourself pointed out is not a reliable predictor of stopping power/incapacitation speed/incapacitation probability/etc. in post #95), would not a caliber which offers a substantially larger wound volume be considered superior just as a caliber which offers a substantially smaller wound volume is considered inferior?

One more time, John repeated findings from qualified experts that within a range, differences in wound volume are insignificant.

He did not say that substantially greater wound volume would not offer an advantage.

Of course, with it comes disadvantages.

The point that I'm trying to make is that while we cannot agree on which measure of terminal effectiveness is best, we do seem to be able to come to a consensus that, at some point, energy/diameter/momentum/wound volume/etc. does indeed outweigh controllability.

I have not heard any indication of such a consensus.

I have heard that some cartridges do not measure up in terms of penetration and permanent wound channel.

That being said, since we cannot come to a consensus on which of those methods of measure is best, then I cannot see how we can come to a consensus on where exactly the best balance between caliber size/power vs. controllability is.

Do you disagree that there is a desirable minimum in terms of penetration, and that, all other things being equal, a larger permanent wound channel is better than a smaller one?

But all things are never equal, and the rate of combat accurate shooting becomes important for increasing the likelihood of hitting something critical. Defensive shooters are not attacked by water jugs.

How can we agree that a 9mm is the minimum adequate caliber because it meets the FBI standards when we cannot even agree if the FBI standard is the best way to measure cartridge effectiveness?

John has addressed that quite well.

I would argue that a full power 10mm loading belongs in the same performance class as Magnum cartridges like .41 and .44 Magnum rather than service pistol class cartridges like 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

I don't think anyone will argue with that.

But there are some very good reasons why law enforcement officers rarely carry the 10mm. .41 Magnum, or .44 Magnum on duty.

 

[mavracer]

Below 9mm it's difficult to reliably achieve sufficient penetration with expanding ammunition.

But you say wound volume doesn't matter, or like usual it only matters to support your position?

Let's say we have a 12" wound track that has a total volume of 0.5 ounces greater than the wound track of another wound track from a different caliber that is roughly the same length.

When that 1/2 oz voulme is 20-30% larger means that the rate of blood loss will increase shorting the timer add to that the fact that usually with that larger wound diameter the added momentum can have both a larger and deeper wound.

The funniest part of this is the Jerry Dove's 115gr +p Silvertip penatrated 12" which is why they really wanted 18" but now almost 30 years later were back to anything 12" is sufficient and any more is a waste.

 

[Tin Foil]

originally posted by mavracer

When that 1/2 oz voulme is 20-30% larger means that the rate of blood loss will increase shorting the timer

Exactly !
In the 1986 FBI shootout the agent who was missed at point blank said it's because Maddox was losing consciousness due to blood loss. Bigger the hole, it's rather simple science. And had those holes big bigger it more than 'probable' would have ended sooner.

The 9mm real weakness is it is simply too fast and can pass through the human body without doing any real damage.
It's only real claim to fame is being able to carry a lot of rounds. Spray & Pray mentality. And hope for that lucky shot, and still wonder if can shatter bone.

Hit an artery in the neck some say, sure, but I can do that with a sling-shot.

 

[Brit]

MORE IS BETTER, ALWAYS!

But it's a false comfort zone and therein is the problem. And has the potential to get people killed.
And it's being sold all over the internet and it's simply a false doctrine.

FBI stats will clearly show it's over under 3 shots, in under 36 inches and less than 10 minutes. Anything beyond that and you are involved in a firefight.

Tin Foil,
When you carry a pistol, to protect you and yours, you live in a total area of "I don't know!"

Me personally, as I have stated before, had a lot of physical fights, during a stormy 5 years as a Bouncer in Clubs in Liverpool UK (and due to my red hair heritage, a few outside of those 5 years!) so take the instant attack mode you develop in that area and move it into gun play?

There is a little switch, an automatic selection one, that says SELECT! buried deep in the human brain. This selection has to be Fists/Feet/GUN?

If you have no real expertise with hand to hand combat, you will go to gun sooner!

I was in a confrontation with a well dressed young man, in an elevator, he stated his intention "I need a hug" and as only my Wife and I were in his elevator, it was clear I was not the huggable one!

This was at an IALEFI Conference in Dayton Ohio, in 2004. I was 69 YOA.

I was dressed in Firearm Instructor casual! My lovely Wife was dressed to kill!
Stood against the buttons. I dealt with his movement towards her, by an instant redirecting of his stride into the rear of the elevator! Hard.

At this time I was carrying a Glock 19, a folding Benchmade knife, and a slide out emergency blade.

It never crossed my mind to go to gun, or blade! It was a hands on solution.

Back to the false comfort zone? The way to fire a pistol, at aggressors, one, or more than one, is to aim at the threats, press the trigger to deliver rounds, at this individual, or more than one.

You can deliver more, if you start off with more. Simple math.

Eight rounds of .45ACP in an all steel 1911, weighs the same as 16 rounds of 9mm 147g Ranger T, in a Glock 19? or more?

More controllable 9mm. And no safety catch to miss (I have done that) once.

Spray and pray is a method of firing, any firearm! As perfected by holding an AK47 above the head, pressing trigger!

 

[44 AMP]

Every wound they received up until the point blank shots to the head where survivable.

Not according to various medical experts I have seen. The "failed" 9mm hit would have been "most likely fatal, if it had happened at the operating room door, and certainly fatal anywhere else", meaning that, that 9mm hit, alone, would have killed via blood loss before he could have been transported to surgery.

I would certainly not consider that a survivable wound.

The 9mm real weakness is it is simply too fast and can pass through the human body without doing any real damage.

I was willing to discuss things until you dropped this road apple. That's you opinion, and you're welcome to it. Congratulations.

 

[Tin Foil]

originally posted by Brit

If you have no real expertise with hand to hand combat, you will go to gun sooner!

I had always subscribed to the feet first. But I understand where you are coming from because of your past line of work as a bar bouncer.
I only carry a gun because the feet ain't so fast anymore.

I didn't survive growing up on the streets of Chicago and then later through out my adult life by being a tough guy. (and I've seen the toughness go down) I could have never been tough to begin with, I don't like violence.

And I really hate carrying a gun, but if you can believe this not because I'm afraid to use it but because if I have to use it the system will try to railroad me. So I have to always be aware of that, but being I know survival I'm not a hot head to begin with. And if you don't know how to control your anger or let things slide off your back you should not be carrying a gun to begin with. And the hot heads come in all age groups.

I had a few months ago an older gentlemen run his mouth at the local grocery store. I just kept on moving cause if I ever do pull that gun I'm going to try to kill you. (and then stick something in your hand to make it look even better) We call that one the Saturday night special or a.k.a. street smarts courtesy of the Chicago cops of yesteryear .

 

[manta49]

MORE IS BETTER, ALWAYS!

But it's a false comfort zone and therein is the problem. And has the potential to get people killed.
And it's being sold all over the internet and it's simply a false doctrine.

Not having enough ammo will get you killed quicker. I can give examples of where extra ammo saved lives, can you give examples of too much ammo getting someone killed. ?

The 9mm real weakness is it is simply too fast and can pass through the human body without doing any real damage.

Seriously. So in that case a rifle bullet traveling at 3,000 fps will be going too fast to do any real damage, or .357 magnum .357 SIG both traveling faster that a 9MM LUGER / NATO.

 

[Tin Foil]

You miss the point entirely. No one can ever argue they wish they had less.
But giving the false impression that you need multiple 15 round mags of whatever ammo sets up that false comfort zone.

What that means is being in the wrong place. That wrong time is more hype than anything else. Yes it can happen, but if you are dropping your 15 round mag for a reload you might want to have had a better plan B to begin with.

 

[Brit]

TIN foil,

I think you are missing the point entirely. We as older Gentlemen, know our physical liability's, or should. But these do not include walking, swinging in to my Jeep, drawing and hitting well with my Glock Gen 4 19. Truglo fiber optics help. I shoot IDPA.

My whole idea, is simple, the same gun, the same place always, no surprises.
It is not felt, it just sits.

We, none of us, have any concept of the gunfight we have not yet got into!

We most likely will not ever get into a gun fight, non of us, but not to be prepared is just being remiss. Might be more than one assailant, the antagonists might not even be attacking us! We might be dragged into a Mall attack! Who knows?

So 16 rounds of top quality 9mm ammo, ready to go. Can not be bad.
These rounds do not eat nothing! If you only need 2 rounds, or one! So what!

The others, sitting in the hardly depleted magazine. Just sitting! If you need 16? you have them. Who knows. If you have to go to a spare magazine, due to a malfunction, I have 17 rounds on the off side.

If riots come our way, AK 47-Steyr AUG, both with 30 round magazines, do I think this will happen? No but they sit in the safe.

We are gun people, not panicky people, just people.

 

[Tin Foil]

I hear ya.
(and I truly understand)
If I could add two things to my perception of comfort as it pertains to safety it would be a semi-automatic shotgun and a Doberman Pincher.

If I lived where you do, I might hope for more money to live behind a gated community.
I hear ya though, when the total societal breakdown happens it will be every man, woman and child for themselves. Neighbor against neighbor.

Our only hope is that we will be dead and buried before that time arrives.
(and that time it's coming sooner than later)

Keep it dry..

 

[manta49]

Yes it can happen, but if you are dropping your 15 round mag for a reload you might want to have had a better plan B to begin with

You can't choose what situation you could end up in. People have needed more than 15 rounds to survive a situation in the past, and will in the future.

FBI stats will clearly show it's over under 3 shots, in under 36 inches and less than 10 minutes.

Relying on that being the case could get you killed.

 

[dirtd0g]

Let's not let this turn into a caliber war. The whole point of my initial post was that the caliber you choose, while an important consideration, should be a secondary consideration after obtaining and honing the skills you need to shoot well defensively.

Nice comparison, but none of this information matters IF YOU CAN'T HIT YOUR TARGET.​

My wife went with a .380 Bodyguard as her CCW. Why? Because she can put 6 rounds into an 8in plate at 7yds quickly. She initially got an M&P 9c but, even after a trigger job, had to focus and basically "target shoot" to get similar results.

In a defensive situation she won't be taking 30 seconds to fire 1 shot.

In time and with more practice she may end up with a Shield in 9mm like me... But that is my dream just to consolidate the calibers we need to buy for the range!

I guess the maxim regarding your choice of pistol caliber for defensive carry would be along the lines of, "Choose the caliber you are most comfortable shooting in a defensive setting."

Question: Which one can kill or incapacitate? Answer: Any of them.​

For those of you that can rock those 1911s and hit the black back-to-back-to-back as if its a reflex... Go for it.

But for those of you who are just getting into shooting and you wish to be in your community defended and ready, I cannot recommend you strap a gun in a caliber you are unfamiliar with or perform poorly with into your holster.

All calibers can kill when the shots are well-placed. All calibers can stop an attack even before the trigger is pulled. Learn to handle your weapon. Practice drawing and firing with a defensive situation in mind. While it feels good to empty a magazine into the bulls-eye while target shooting, that type of training is NOT going to prepare you for having to defend yourself from attack with a handgun. You will not be able to ask your assailant to slow down so you can take a breath.

Jerry is a well-trained shooter... But in a defensive situation is he going to wait for the "beep" before firing?​

My whole idea, is simple, the same gun, the same place always, no surprises.

I like this philosophy. If you carry a firearm in my community I hope that you are intimately familiar with it. While I am happy you are exercising your right to bear arms and elated that another conscientious citizen is taking steps to avoid victimization, I cringe to think of you pulling it out and shooting everyone and everything else except your target.

Ooops! Good thing he wasn't looking DOWN the barrel...​

 

[mavracer]

The whole point of my initial post was that the caliber you choose, while an important consideration, should be a secondary consideration after obtaining and honing the skills you need to shoot well defensively.

If you don't choose a caliber first what are you practicing with?

 

[tipoc]

"...an operating room surgeon or Medical Examiner cannot distinguish the difference between wounds caused by .35 to .45 caliber projectiles."

This is true. They cannot tell the difference between the wound track of a .32 H&R Magnum vs a 357 magnum. They are not trained to do that nor equipped to do it. Only on TV does an ME look at a corpse and pronounce what caliber a fella was shot with. In reality they need a shell casing, a bullet and a gun in evidence to tell you. It's a statement, a piece of random information, that has no relevance to this discussion. It also does not mean that there is no difference in the effect differing rounds, bullets and loadings can have.

It's also a statement that cuts both ways.

To say that there is no real world difference in the terminal effectiveness of more powerful rounds over the 9mm is to deny plain physics. The 9mm may be a better choice for many for a number of reasons. But a person does not need to stretch the facts to say that the 9mm is the equivalent of others.


tipoc

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by tipoc:

To say that there is no real world difference in the terminal effectiveness of more powerful rounds over the 9mm is to deny plain physics.

Sounds like we have yet another poster who does not accept this FBI Training Division conclusion:

There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto.

Given contemporary bullet construction, LEO’s can field (with proper bullet selection) 9mm Lugers with all of the terminal performance potential of any other law enforcement pistol caliber with none of the disadvantages present with the “larger” calibers

I agree that, when one takes into account the difference in expanded bullet diameters, that conclusion appears counterintuitive. But the report speaks of elasticity and other things, and I suggest that while the report might not sound right to some of us, none of us have performed any real scientific testing or study to prove anything else.

What "plain physics" does that is significant here is (1) cause the bullet to penetrate the target and (2) cause the bullet to expand. Both require work, and work is energy, or force times distance. That's it.

I suggest that the comment about surgeons and medical examiners was probably made to put the comment about the similarity of wound tracks in an understandable perspective.

 

[tipoc]

Sounds like we have yet another poster who does not accept this FBI Training Division conclusion:
Quote:
There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto.

Given contemporary bullet construction, LEO’s can field (with proper bullet selection) 9mm Lugers with all of the terminal performance potential of any other law enforcement pistol caliber with none of the disadvantages present with the “larger” calibers
.

Reading and understanding are sometimes different. The statement above is often misunderstood to mean that there is no difference in terminal effectiveness of the 9mm, 40 S&W, 38 Spl. .357 Magnum, 38 Super or the 45acp or 10mm. Or that there is an equivalency in power. It does not say that.

What it does say is that modern self defense ammo is built to certain parameters of performance of penetration and expansion which brings them, despite their differences, to penetrate to similar depths and expand in 10% ballistic gelatin.

Then the quoted statement says something interesting. It says the 9mm meets these parameters "with none of the disadvantages present with the "larger" calibers." With this it ties the above conclusions into the acceptance of the 9mm for reasons other than the power or performance of the 9mm. It ties it to "shootability" gun size and round count. It ties it to a good choice for purposes of arming a large law enforcement dept.

But the statement is careful not to say that it is a better performer in FBI tests across the board or even as good as others.

tipoc

 

[JohnKSa]

But if a difference in energy, diameter, penetration, momentum, wound volume, etc. cannot be used as a reliable predictor of terminal effectiveness between calibers, would the same unreliability not apply to predicting the terminal effectiveness of expanding vs. non-expanding bullets?

I'm not claiming that differences in energy, diameter, penetration, momentum, wound volume can't be used as reliable predictors of terminal performance.

My position is that within the service pistol calibers, it is difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a practical difference in terms of incapacitation times/incapacitation rates due to wound volume, energy, diameter, and momentum. I take that position because I've not seen any conclusive evidence that contradicts it.

Penetration is very important because if the bullet doesn’t go deep enough, physiological incapacitation is impossible. That said, penetration with good quality expanding ammunition across the caliber class we’re discussing is very similar.

Clearly if one changes several of the listed parameters dramatically in the same direction then that becomes a reliable predictor of terminal effectiveness—but that would also take the caliber out of the service pistol caliber performance class.

There does seem to be a significant benefit to expanding ammunition. In my opinion, a large part of that is due to the fact that it provides effective “notification” to the attacker. The large temporary cavity created by expanding ammunition is roughly equivalent to a blow from a blunt instrument. It creates a sensation that immediately lets the person who is shot know that they have been shot. Given that psychological stops are an extremely important component of real-world self-defense, it’s important for the attacker to know he’s been shot and expanding ammo does that very effectively.

In addition, in contrast to the relatively small differences encountered when comparing one caliber to another, there is typically a very large difference between the diameter of an expanded and unexpanded round. In essence, a premium expanding bullet will nearly double the effective diameter of the round and will, in the process provide a huge increase in temporary cavity.

When one considers all that is obtained without having to incur any of the tradeoffs which would be associated with doubling the caliber or increasing temporary cavity by increasing velocity alone, it becomes clear that expanding ammo is a gamechanger.

… we do seem to be able to come to a consensus that, at some point, energy/diameter/momentum/wound volume/etc. does indeed outweigh controllability.

Well, not really. It wouldn’t be prudent to choose a caliber that one can’t control in return for terminal performance benefits, no matter how great they are. No matter how fantastic the terminal performance is, one still needs to be able to make hits. Even if you were able to choose a handgun that guaranteed that one hit will always neutralize an opponent, it would still be important to be able to shoot rapidly and accurately a second time. Otherwise one would be hard pressed to deal with a second assailant, or a missed first shot.

As I said in a previous post, performance at the range should be a key component in caliber selection. If times and accuracy scores demonstrate that a given caliber doesn’t hinder your performance then if a particular caliber instills confidence, can provide sufficient penetration with expanding ammunition, carrying it makes sense. But if practice at the range demonstrates that you’re giving up measurable accuracy/speed in return for a “benefit” that can’t be demonstrated, let alone quantified/measured; that doesn’t make sense.

…could it not be argued that, in a full power loading, a 10mm is more than one or two steps up and thus in a different performance class than a 9mm is?

The performance class boundaries on the upper side are less well defined and therefore the exact placement of the boundary is open to debate. If you look at wound volume numbers, the .357Mag and 10mm are definitely at the top end of the class, but there is, in my opinion, not enough of a difference to put them into another performance class. They are clearly not in the same class as full-power .41Mag and .44Mag but it might be possible to support the contention that they fit into a class between the true magnums and the service pistol calibers.

From a practical perspective, even if one were able to move those two calibers one would still want to have some idea of what kind of a performance improvement would be provided to be able to balance it against any degradation in terms of shooting performance at the range.

But you say wound volume doesn't matter, or like usual it only matters to support your position?

First of all, wound volume is not the same thing as penetration and my comment was about penetration. Second, I don’t believe that wound volume doesn’t matter. What I am saying is:

1. The differences in wound volume between the calibers being discussed are much smaller than most people seem to think.

2. The differences in wound volume between the calibers being discussed have not been demonstrated to have a significant effect on stopping power/incapacitation times/incapacitation rates.

The funniest part of this is the Jerry Dove's 115gr +p Silvertip penatrated 12" which is why they really wanted 18" but now almost 30 years later were back to anything 12" is sufficient and any more is a waste.

1. I agree that it was not productive to attempt to blame the penetration of that particular round for the fiasco in question. For one thing, it penetrated quite well based on the autopsy results I've seen. Second, trying to condense a gunfight into the performance of a single round, out of more than 100 rounds fired is a hopeless oversimplification.

2. The penetration specification is still “between 12 and 18 inches”. I’ve not seen anything that suggests that the FBI now believes that any penetration above 12" is a waste, they state that 12” of penetration should be considered to be the minimum amount that is acceptable. They do also set a top limit of 18” above which they consider penetration to be excessive.

When that 1/2 oz voulme is 20-30% larger means that the rate of blood loss will increase shorting the timer…

Again, perspective is important. The holes we’re talking about are very small and therefore it is far more important WHERE the hole is compared to whether one hole is 20% larger than the other or not.

How can we agree that a 9mm is the minimum adequate caliber because it meets the FBI standards when we cannot even agree if the FBI standard is the best way to measure cartridge effectiveness?

I assume you're referring specifically to my comment about achieving a minimum penetration specification of 12" with expanding ammunition. The reason that the minimum of 12" makes sense as a penetration threshold is because its foundation is basic human anatomy, not someone's theory of what makes one bullet more effective than another.

… how we can come to a consensus on where exactly the best balance between caliber size/power vs. controllability is.

Get to the range with some different handgun options and see where your performance starts to suffer--then back off a little in terms of recoil.

It occurred to me that there is a reservoir of data that is pertinent to this topic. GSSF match scores are posted online and GSSF recently introduced a new category called Heavy Metal. Competitors in that category must shoot a pistol chambered in .45ACP, .45GAP or 10mm. There is also a category called Amateur Civilian and most shooters in that category compete with 9mm pistols although it’s legal to compete with any caliber in that category. Both categories use exactly the same course of fire.

This means that we can look at shooters who compete in both categories and see how their scores different. Of course, it’s important to understand that this will UNDER estimate the performance degradation since it’s not a straight comparison between 9mm and .45/10mm. That’s because Amateur Civilian has no caliber restrictions and therefore a shooter could compete with a 9mm, .357SIG, .40S&W, .45GAP, .45ACP or 10mm if he/she wished to. Still, because most shooters compete in Amateur Civilian with 9mm pistols, it should provide some useful data even if it underestimates the factor we’re concerned with.

I downloaded the results from two of the larger matches held this year and compared the scores of all of the shooters who shot an entry in both categories. So if "Frank Smith" shot in both categories, his scores from each category would be compared. If "Ann Jones" shot in only one of the categories, her score would not be included in the comparison.

On average, the scores (time combined with accuracy penalties) from the Heavy Metal category, when compared with scores from the same shooters in Amateur Civilian were about 20-30% worse.