Pistol Caliber Effectiveness from a Medical Point of View

[Frank Ettin]

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....

The thing is, I think, that we can make certain "guesses" based on our understanding of physiology and the capacity of various cartridges to inflict tissue damage. But out in the world there are too many variables, such as: shot placement (both where the bullet ends up and what tissue it passed through to get there); the subject's mental state; drug or adrenalin effects; the subject's musculature, health and general physical condition; what the subject was wearing. Furthermore, when looking at real world results statistically, I doubt we have large enough samples to washout the influences of those variables.

 

[mavracer]

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.

Of course that's the problem you can really only know how much wound volume/penetration "after" you know the wound track and there's just too many variables in the world of human anatomy to reliably predict what the probability any one shot will stop the BG.
It is however very easy to analyze a gunshot after the fact IE the Dove shot in Miami either a wider wound track would have clipped the brachial artery or a deeper wound track that would have pierced the heart causing a much shorter timer for Mattox.
And I'm sure that the guy mentioned earlier hit with 14 45 cal slugs wouldn't have been more affected by smaller rounds.

Nothing wrong with a 9mm it is as you point out really the minimum auto round that expands and meets the FBI minimum for penetration, and it is easier for most people to shoot fast and accurate, heck I gave my dad two of my 9mms when we finely realized he really couldn't handle a 45 any more. I ain't there yet so every time I go to the Chinese buffet and see some 500# guy I go home and put the little gun away lol.

Actually the one thing these kinds of discussions really do is get me to do more "failure to stop" drills

 

[JohnKSa]

Furthermore, when looking at real world results statistically, I doubt we have large enough samples to washout the influences of those variables.

That's precisely what Patrick Urey stated in his famous paper on the topic.

The problem is that most people (apparently to include Mr. Urey) don't understand what it means. If you really need hundreds, or thousands of shootings to be able to observe the effects of a particular variable on the desired outcome (as Urey believed was true), that is just another way of stating that variable is having a very small effect on the outcome.

From a practical standpoint, when you determine that a variable is having a very small effect on the outcome, you look for other ways you can affect the outcome more easily and/or more effectively.

If you can improve your shooting performance by 20%-30%, for example, it makes a lot more sense to take that approach rather than to bank on something that has such a small effect on the desired outcome that it's virtually impossible to demonstrate it.

And I'm sure that the guy mentioned earlier hit with 14 45 cal slugs wouldn't have been more affected by smaller rounds.

It's hard to say. Perhaps if the slugs had hit closer to where the shooter aimed? Perhaps if the attacker was hit by an additional 3 or 4 rounds? That's the whole point of the discussion. There's a tendency to pretend that the only thing that would have changed was the size/weight/velocity of the bullets. In fact, changing to a different gun/caliber could have changed any number of factors.

Actually the one thing these kinds of discussions really do is get me to do more "failure to stop" drills.

Which is a good thing. Shooter performance (which can be improved with practice) is a far more important parameter than caliber for determining the outcome of a gunfight.

 

[AK103K]

Actually the one thing these kinds of discussions really do is get me to do more "failure to stop" drills

Regardless of caliber, wouldnt every encounter that requires you to shoot, be an active failure to stop drill?

Doesnt matter what it is, rifle, pistol shotgun, smg.... you shoot until they are down, and every instance, is its own critter. What happened "once" or "a thousand times" to someone else, really has no bearing on it.

 

[Tin Foil]

originally posted by Frank Ettin

The thing is, I think, that we can make certain "guesses" based on our understanding of physiology and the capacity of various cartridges to inflict tissue damage. But out in the world there are too many variables, such as: shot placement (both where the bullet ends up and what tissue it passed through to get there); the subject's mental state; drug or adrenalin effects; the subject's musculature, health and general physical condition; what the subject was wearing. Furthermore, when looking at real world results statistically, I doubt we have large enough samples to washout the influences of those variables.

Bingo !
And the problem with any test done whether it's by the FBI or any State police dept. it is far too sterilized. Testing through ballistic gel tells us us very little that has any real credibility. But a Scientist working for these entities would never think to take a slab of beef with bone and dress it up in a pea coat or jean jacket.

Far closer to a human body than a block of gel is that's for sure.
But the 9mm works we all know that. And for the FBI field agent it works great because on average they will pull it out even less than we do. And then only once a year to qualify if it's every year. Some dept. go every 3 years now.

I guess what bothers me about all this is how the internet has helped spread misunderstandings and how some have run with it as if it's the gospel truth. Some know it's all crap but because it hides behind a well known name like the FBI it's the last word.
But the real motivation is because they are heavily into the 9mm and quite frankly cannot handle anything better. And they don't want to put forth the effort to get better at being able to handle anything else.

They go to range only slightly more than mention above.
That's why I don't carry anything heavier than a .38, I simply can't afford to go more than 3x a year.
The excuses are plentiful and yet we all have heard about the 70 something year old who still shoot a magnum round. When you start hearing people talk about arthritis this, and eye sight that and etc., etc., etc.
Take it with a grain of salt. They never practiced 40 years ago either. Now they got a safe full of guns and spend their times trading each other back and forth and coming on gun forums with the worlds gun religion.

Join a gun club and you will see the real shooters out there.
The guy who schooled me when I took my courses for carry was in his 70's.
And it was sponsored by our States leading gun club in conjunction with the NRA and all of the instructors where either retired LEO's and few where active.
I always tell the young people avoid any class's where they dress like a sniper or a swat team member.

And besides the wealth of knowledge I walk away with the lesson from the lawyer they brought in really sunk in.
That being hope you have 2000 people from the internet sending in money like George Zimmerman had or you'll be stuck with a public defender who will plea bargain your life straight to hell to go home early. And as one active duty Sgt. made mention to us, he was in the minority among his colleagues who support 'we the people' and our right to arm.

The cops don't want us armed and either does the system. And it's shared privately on both sides of the political isle.
And if you don't have the resources to fight back your screwed. It has now gotten so expensive that the average law abiding citizen can no longer afford it and it's all by design. In the last several years in my area alone we have loss 3 public shooting ranges because of the people with money petitioning the towns to close them because they don' like the noise. That's only one aspect of it all.

 

[mavracer]

Regardless of caliber, wouldnt every encounter that requires you to shoot, be an active failure to stop drill?

"failure to stop" drill as in targeting the head, IE 2 to the body one to the head.

 

[AK103K]

But the real motivation is because they are heavily into the 9mm and quite frankly cannot handle anything better. And they don't want to put forth the effort to get better at being able to handle anything else.

They go to range only slightly more than mention above.

Speak for yourself.

Im heavily into 9mm these days, simply because they offer more options than any of the others with similar performance. They are easier to shoot, they are cheaper to shoot, and I shoot a good bit more, simply because of that. I shoot EVERY week, and usually on average, 300 rounds of 9mm alone.

I also still shoot my .45's, .38/.357's, .380's, and a couple of others too. I didnt walk away from the .45's, .357's, etc. because I cant shoot them, I did so because the guns I historically carried that were chambered for them, were becoming less relevant, and in the case of the .45's, less reliable, and didnt carry the on board ammo the 9mm's allow in a similar or smaller gun. If you can shoot a .45 or .357MAG well, you can shoot a 9mm even better, and do so longer, and thats a fact.

That's why I don't carry anything heavier than a .38, I simply can't afford to go more than 3x a year.

Mmmm, OK....

The excuses are plentiful...

They always are.

Join a gun club and you will see the real shooters out there.

Yes you will, and its often scary. And to think, a lot of those people actually carry a gun and "think" they are prepared.

"failure to stop" drill as in targeting the head, IE 2 to the body one to the head.

Ah, the old "Mozambique". Old school.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Old Marksman
Quote:
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.

And I addressed this in my previous response to John. John said that .380/9mm is the dividing line because below 9mm you can't get adequate penetration with expanding bullets. However, John also said this in post # 95:

Originally posted by JohnKSa
Unfortunately it's even more difficult to quantify terminal effect in terms of actual stopping power/incapacitation time/incapacitation probability/etc. So difficult, in fact, that no one has managed to come up with an accepted method in decades of trying. Various people measure diameter, energy, momentum, power factor, penetration, wound volume, etc., and endlessly argue why one parameter is better than another one for predicting effectiveness. But when you ask them what the measured differences will mean in terms of how much faster someone hit solidly will stop shooting at you, or how many fewer shots it will take to incapacitate someone using a caliber that scores higher things get very quiet.

emphasis added

So if, as John pointed out, none of the above mentioned measurements is a reliable predictor of terminal effectiveness, then we cannot predict how much better a 9mm which penetrates 12+" is than a .380 which penetrates 10". Likewise, we cannot predict how much better a 9mm which expands to .55" is vs. a .380 which does not expand. Sure, we know that the 9mm is probably somewhat better, but we don't know how much. That leads us into this statement from post # 112

Originally posted by JohnKSa
In light of that, which makes more sense? Does it make more sense to point out that if there is a difference no one has been able to demonstrate it and therefore it would be prudent to be skeptical about the practical value of such a difference, if it exists? Or is it wiser to claim that there’s obviously a practical difference even though no one can prove it?

So, if the fact that a 10mm rates above a 9mm in every way that anyone has come up with to measure terminal effectiveness is outweighed by the 9mm's lower recoil because none of the measures of terminal effectiveness are reliable, then I fail to see why those same unreliable measures of terminal effectiveness outweigh the even lower recoil of a .380. I'm sorry but you can't tell me that every measure of terminal effectiveness that we've come up with is unreliable and then turn around a use one or two of those same measures (penetration and wound volume) to justify why your preferred cartridge is better than another.

Originally posted by Old Marksman
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.

Originally posted by Old Marksman
I have heard that some cartridges do not measure up in terms of penetration and permanent wound channel.

Well then let's look at some wound volume and penetration numbers for "premium law enforcement" ammo. We can fairly easily calculate approximate wound volume by simply multiplying the frontal area of the bullet by its penetration depth, so from Brassfetcher's bare 10% gelatin tests we get the following:

.380 ACP Winchester 95 gr Ranger-T: 9.3" penetration, 0.259 sq. " expansion, 2.41 sq. " total wound volume

9mm Winchester 127 gr +P+ Ranger-T: 11.2" penetration, 0.323 sq. " expansion, 3.62 sq. " total wound volume

.45 ACP Winchester 230 gr +P Ranger-T: 13.3" penetration, 0.471 sq. " expansion, 6.26 sq. " total wound volume.

So, the difference in total wound volume between the .380 and 9mm (in a +P+ loading no less) is 1.21 sq. ". That means, according to your own statements, that 1.21 sq. " is the difference between adequate and inadequate. However, the difference between the 9mm and the .45 ACP is 2.64 sq. ", over twice the difference between the 9mm and .380.

So, please explain to me why a .380 is inadequate when, by the numbers, it performs much closer to the 9mm than the .45 which you say does not offer enough increased terminal effect to be worth the extra recoil. It would seem to me that if, as you contend, the increased wound volume of the .45 isn't worth the extra recoil over the 9mm, then the even smaller difference between the 9mm and .380 wound volume should be outweighed by the .380's lighter recoil.

Originally posted by Old Marksman
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.

I don't disagree that there is a desirable minimum in penetration, but not everyone agrees on exactly what that desirable minimum is. I have read some rather compelling arguments as to why as little as 10" is a sufficient minimum and I have read other equally compelling arguments as to why as much as 16" should be the sufficient minimum.

Even the FBI does not pin penetration down to one magic number. In Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness, Patrick Urey makes the following statement:

While penetration of up to 18 inches is preferable, a handgun bullet MUST penetrate 12 inches of soft body tissue at a minimum, regardless of whether it expands or not.

emphasis added

http://firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Now perhaps you interpret that statement differently than I do, but it sounds to me that the FBI is saying that a bullet that penetrates 18" is better than one which penetrates 12".

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

Choosing a gun for an entire police department and choosing one for yourself are two very different things. A department of significant size is going to have officers of varying, size, strength, skill level, and experience. Some of the officers may very well be able to shoot a 10mm, .41 Magnum, or .44 Magnum adequately, but others may not. In such a case, it is prudent to find the combination of gun, caliber, and ammunition that everyone in the department can shoot adequately. Likewise, large calibers, more often than not, come in large guns with large grips. Some officers may have smaller hands and thus it makes sense to choose the gun/caliber which can fit the widest variety of hand sizes/shapes well.

I, however, don't have to find a single gun and caliber that a wide variety of people can shoot adequately, just one that I can shoot adequately. It makes no difference if someone else can't shoot my 10mm, .41 Magnum, or .44 Magnum well, because he/she isn't the one who may have to use it. Too many people get caught up in what the police use and assume that what's best for a cop is best for everyone. They never stop to think that the needs/limitations of a cop's gun and the needs/limitations of a private individual's gun are not always one in the same.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by JohnKSa
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.

I think you may be overestimating how clear the line at the bottom end of the service caliber class is. For example, in Brassfetcher's 10% bare gel tests, two .380 JHP loadings actually make it to the FBI's 12" minimum penetration standard (Federal 90 gr Hydra-Shok and Hornady 90 gr XTP). Conversely, several 9mm loadings (124 gr +P+ Hydra Shok, 135 gr Hydra Shok, 124 gr +P Gold Dot, and 127 gr +P+ Ranger-T) fail to meet the 12" minimum.

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.

OK, I can see the logic in that. However, would not the larger temporary cavity often caused by larger and more powerful cartridges amplify that effect to an even larger degree?

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.

But at the same time, would it not also be imprudent to step down to a caliber that offers demonstrably inferior terminal performance in return for a small increase in controllability even if that increase is measurable? As I pointed out before, a .22 Long Rifle will, for most people, give a measurable increase in controllability over a comparable gun in 9mm. However, as you pointed out, the .22 Long Rifle produces terminal performance so inferior to the 9mm that, in most cases, the measurable increase in controllability isn't worth the decrease in terminal performance.

My argument is that the converse is also true, a caliber which produces significantly greater terminal performance than a 9mm is worth the decrease in controllability so long as the decrease in controllability is not drastic. Even if we lump both 9mm and 10mm into the service pistol class, the 9mm performs at the lower end of that class in terms of expansion and penetration while the 10mm performs at the upper end of that class.

For example, in tnoutdoors9's testing on Youtube, the Federal 9mm 147 gr HST (considered among the best 9mm JHP loadings available) penetrated to 13.25" and expanded to .664". By my calculation, that comes out to a total wound volume of approximately 4.59 sq. ". By comparison, the Hornady 10mm 180 gr XTP (which is not even a full-power loading) penetrated to 17.125" and expanded to .656" for a total wound volume of 5.79 sq. ". So, the 10mm gives us 29% deeper penetration and 26% greater total wound volume.

Now, as you pointed out, penetration is an important consideration. So, when one caliber gives me roughly the same expanded diameter but nearly a third more penetration than another, I see that as a significant difference. Referring back to Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness, Special Agent Urey states that while 12" is the minimum adequate, up to 18" is preferable. As such, it would seem to me that if both 9mm and 10mm are service pistol class cartridges, the 9mm is "just enough" and the 10mm is "best in class" as far as penetration is concerned. While I will concede that both probably have sufficient penetration for a small-to-medium sized person, on a very large person (of which there are an increasing number) the extra penetration afforded by the 10mm could potentially be very beneficial (such as the difference between stopping in soft tissue and reaching the spine).

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.

But isn't some decrease in accuracy/speed acceptable if said decrease is relatively small and the increase in terminal performance is relatively large? The recoil of the Hornady XTP loading I referenced above is quite mild in my 1076; milder, in fact, than most of the full-size .40's and .45's that I've shot. Is not the rather large increase in penetration and wound volume not worth the small increase in recoil as compared to a 9mm?

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.

OK, I can go along with that. I can see placing 10mm and .357 Magnum into an "in between" class because, in some loadings (mainly light or "medium velocity" loadings) they perform more similar to the service class cartridges while in their top-end loadings their performance is more reminiscent of the larger magnums. One of the problems with lumping cartridges into performance classes is that at the extreme upper and extreme lower ends things tend to get blurry.

For example, a .25 Auto and .380 Auto perform quite differently, but are frequently lumped in together. Likewise, a .41 Magnum and .500 S&W perform very differently but are also often lumped in together. The same, I think, holds true for 9mm and 10mm: they are at opposite ends of the same class separated by several small steps.

 

[mavracer]

From a practical standpoint, when you determine that a variable is having a very small effect on the outcome, you look for other ways you can affect the outcome more easily and/or more effectively.

Yes, but we disagree that it has a very small effect, sometimes it has a HUGE effect.

 

[JohnKSa]

But the real motivation is because they are heavily into the 9mm and quite frankly cannot handle anything better. And they don't want to put forth the effort to get better at being able to handle anything else.

I took my last training class with a 10mm and shot better than all but perhaps one or two of the students. That was a class in which each student was a certified firearms instructor.

My real motivation is trying to explain to others what I have learned from my study on this topic.

Yes, but we disagree that it has a very small effect, sometimes it has a HUGE effect.

Anyone can have any opinion that they choose to have. The problem comes when they try to support it with facts. When Urey says that it will take huge numbers of shootings to demonstrate the difference, how does one assess that to mean that caliber has a "HUGE effect"?

So if, as John pointed out, none of the above mentioned measurements is a reliable predictor of terminal effectiveness, then we cannot predict how much better a 9mm which penetrates 12+" is than a .380 which penetrates 10".

It's not so much that the parameters aren't reliable predictors, it's that the differences between the calibers in the performance class we're discussing aren't practically significant.

As far as the question about the 380 vs the 9mm and the penetration difference goes, trying to quantify the difference between the two is daunting. Fortunately the assessment isn't based on a careful quantification of terminal performance, the assessment is based on the fundamentals of human anatomy which demand that a bullet penetrate 12" or more in order to be considered reliably lethal. That's not difficult at all.

So, if the fact that a 10mm rates above a 9mm in every way that anyone has come up with to measure terminal effectiveness is outweighed by the 9mm's lower recoil because none of the measures of terminal effectiveness are reliable...

It's not that the measures are unreliable, it's that the differences between the calibers in the service pistol class aren't sufficiently large to make a practical difference.

So, please explain to me why a .380 is inadequate...

The reason pocket pistols are considered to be less effective than the service pistol calibers is because they don't provide sufficient penetration with expanding ammunition. Because at some point if you keep taking small steps, no matter how small they are, you eventually move out of one performance class and into another--and at that point you do see some practical differences. In this particular case the practical difference is the inability to provide sufficient penetration with expanding ammunition.

Off the top of my head, if I had to define the practical difference in terminal performance between the service pistol class and the true magnums it would likely be the point at which temporary cavity does become a reliable wounding mechanism.

I, however, don't have to find a single gun and caliber that a wide variety of people can shoot adequately, just one that I can shoot adequately. It makes no difference if someone else can't shoot my 10mm, .41 Magnum, or .44 Magnum well, because he/she isn't the one who may have to use it. Too many people get caught up in what the police use and assume that what's best for a cop is best for everyone. They never stop to think that the needs/limitations of a cop's gun and the needs/limitations of a private individual's gun are not always one in the same.

A couple of things.

1. I agree that each person needs to assess their own capability and decide what they can handle based on their performance in terms of accuracy and shot-to-shot times. It is even possible that some people may be forced to choose calibers below the service pistol class if they find they can't achieve adequate performance with a pistol in the service pistol class. I know people with medical conditions who find that they are limited to carrying pocket pistol calibers because they can't operate small carry guns in service pistol calibers. I don't try to convince them that their gun will be just as effective as one in the service pistol performance class, but I do point out that even small caliber firearms have the potential to be lethal and still offer a formidable deterrent value.

2. In terms of choosing something within the service pistol class, given that there's no conclusive evidence that the calibers perform differently in practical terms, one should decide what "adequate" means by comparing their performance with the various calibers/platforms that fit into that general category. One shouldn't consider performance to be "adequate" unless it is not significantly different from the best performance the shooter can achieve with a platform/caliber in the performance class.

I think you may be overestimating how clear the line at the bottom end of the service caliber class is. For example, in Brassfetcher's 10% bare gel test...

It's worth pointing out that FBI testing incorporates a number of intermediate barriers and bare ballistics gel is only one part of the testing protocol.

That said, if you think it's prudent to expand the class for your own purposes based on your specific ammunition choices, that's up to you. I've provided the generally accepted boundary and the explanation for it.

However, would not the larger temporary cavity often caused by larger and more powerful cartridges amplify that effect to an even larger degree?

At some point it obviously does. There hasn't been a lot of study done on that and what little has been done has been heavily criticized. I don't know where the boundary is, but I suspect that the light bullet loads for the 10mm and .357Mag are pushing the line.

How much shooting performance degradation would I be willing to tolerate to try to capitalize on that suspicion? Not much. Giving up something concrete in return for a "suspected" benefit doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

...a caliber which produces significantly greater terminal performance than a 9mm is worth the decrease in controllability so long as the decrease in controllability is not drastic.

I would agree with the statement if the word "drastic" were replaced with "significant". Because "greater terminal performance" as defined by wound volume doesn't carry with it any guarantee of a practically significant benefit in terms of incapacitation rate/incapacitation time.

But isn't some decrease in accuracy/speed acceptable if said decrease is relatively small and the increase in terminal performance is relatively large?

Same answer. When the experts are saying that it would take hundreds or thousands of shootings to demonstrate the difference between two calibers in the service pistol class, that should be a huge red warning sign advertising that the differences involved are very small. So the assumption that the increase in terminal performance is "relatively large" does not appear to be warranted if we're talking about practical, real-world terminal performance--i.e. incapacitation time/incapacitation rate.

Just to be absolutely clear, I'm not really trying to talk people into selling their 10mm or .45 pistols. If you have a pistol in one of those calibers and feel that you perform adequately with it, find that it instills confidence, and you're comfortable with it, then keep practicing with it and keep using it.

I'll tell you the same thing that I would tell someone who chooses to (or is forced to) carry a pocket pistol caliber. Virtually any firearm has the potential to be lethal and all of them provide a formidable deterrent value.

That said, some choices are less than optimal--either because their terminal ballistics are generally accepted to be below the minimum accepted value for self-defense, or because recoil/muzzle rise is sufficient to significantly hamper shooting performance. Reality is that very few of us will be put into a situation where we are tested in a manner that will truly require absolutely optimal performance with our firearms and therefore our less than optimal choices are unlikely to kill us.

 

[44 AMP]

While there have been a number of good valid points raised in the discussion, there have also been too many generalities and assumptions that do not apply to many specific cases.

One of them is recovery time by caliber and shooter. The 9mm has less recoil, faster recovery time ALWAYs, right? That's how some make it sound, but its not true. It depends on the GUN you are using, and the SHOOTER using it. While you can put the same 9mm ammo in a pocket gun, a Glock and a Luger, most of us won't be able to shoot them all to the same levels.

Personally, my recovery time shooting a full size service pistol either in 9mm or .45 is not noticeably different. I don't compete, I'm not a speed king I simply don't find much difference in the recoil. 9mm feels "snappier" meaning it seems to come back faster but it comes back the same amount as my .45.

The 125gr Jhp .357 is well thought of as a stopping round, but its a bear out of a snubnose revolver, and finding the front sight again in a hurry is a challenge for me. Same round out of a Desert Eagle is a pussycat with a lion's roar. Cleared the bowling pin table (5 pins) in 4.37 sec (a personal best), but didn't even place 3rd against the guys who seriously competed.

What matters is what YOU can do with what you have. NOT what is the best for a police force or the military, unless that is what YOU can use best.

Another general assumption is the quality of today's hollowpoints, and I won't dispute that. However I did live through the era of development, and saw a LOT of failures, so I still have doubts, because I believe in Murphy, and while it may be rare for them to fail today, rare still happens. Have seen 9mm not expand. Have never seen a .45 shrink...

Totally agree that the ME /ER guys cannot tell the difference in caliber from the usual wound channel. Tissue is elastic, and you are only looking at a .1" difference in bullet size to begin with. TO know for certain, you need something hard (non elastic), like bone. And you need the stars to line up to give you an actual bullet size hole, and not a shatter.

 

[Tin Foil]

originally posted by AK103K


Yes you will, and its often scary. And to think, a lot of those people actually carry a gun and "think" they are prepared.

Maybe the ones you go to but the gun clubs out here are not open to the public.
They are private, they cost extra and you must be vetted by a committee to be accepted.

As far as your rap about why you prefer the 9mm I think you made my point very clear. Even clearer. You shoot 9mm because it's cheaper to do and readily available.
And no one here that I have read has denied that the 9mm is a viable defensive round, what we are saying is, it's only better because people can afford to shoot it and handle it.

I'm just glad I can afford .38 cause I'm a revolver person, not much lower I can really go and feel comfortable having an adequate round for defense.
The argument about all this is when some try to pitch the 9mm because it's been around for over a hundred years now as the time proven round. And then discovering most didn't even know how long it's been around but more importantly the how and why it became adopted.

And it only became widely adopted in the 1980's when the semi-automatic pistol became widely accepted to carry. Because it became reliable to do so.
Europe carried .32acp and we carried .38's for the most part.

It was NATO who standardized on it and we follow their lead because we are members and this gave the advantage to share ammo the world over among are armed forces.

And as was mention before on this thread that should have never been allowed to go on to x amount of pages but it has because the owners and moderators of this site are no doubt 9mm enthusiast themselves. That's one of the big problems with these gun forums a lot of bad information floating around out there. But as was already mention the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq showed the 9mm to be wholly inadequate. But then the bureaucrats and their children will never and have never had any skin in the game.

Thankfully someone is finally listening because Uncle Sam is searching for an alternative to the 9mm.
It will be interesting to see where it leads. The civilian people i.e. the police forces are trapped, they have even more politics involved.
Bottom line is this the 9mm doesn't even offer anything substantial over my .38 and not even in cost or availability either.

But if the 9mm appealed to me and I was truly into a semi-automatic platform I would not feel under gunned.
Again the point is people going around telling others that the 9mm is better because this, that or the other.
When some of us know the reasons are

1. Cost of ammo
2. Availability of said ammo
3. Because they feel comfortable enough with the recoil

And I got news for some if the .380 became cheaper some would jump on that.

However, even with all that there is still no shame in the game for carrying a 9mm. And I truly believe that's part of why people on all the gun forums have to constantly try to prove how great the 9mm is and when you have to constantly make arguments for something your belief system is weak. If you don't have confidence in the round you carry for self defense you got problems.
So carry your 9mm and be happy I know I'm rather content with my .38.

But I won't lie I'd feel even more content with a .357 sig and up.
Happy Shooting everyone.
I'm off this thread for good before I get the permanent boot for good.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted byJohnKSa
As far as the question about the 380 vs the 9mm and the penetration difference goes, trying to quantify the difference between the two is daunting. Fortunately the assessment isn't based on a careful quantification of terminal performance, the assessment is based on the fundamentals of human anatomy which demand that a bullet penetrate 12" or more in order to be considered reliably lethal. That's not difficult at all.

OK, perhaps I misunderstood your previous posts. I can go along with the logic of using a 12" minimum as a baseline for adequate performance with expanding ammunition. I do take minor issue, however, with the notion that 12" is the minimum to be reliably lethal. The 12" minimum, as I understand it, was decided upon by the FBI to account for shots through extremities and/or at oblique angles like that of Dove's shot on Platt in the Miami shootout, a "worst case scenario" if you will. In a frontal shot on a small-to-average sized individual, it would likely take significantly less to reach the vital structures (anything much over 10" and you're fairly likely to have through-and-through penetration in a straight-on frontal shot).

There have been many, many fatal shootings with bullets that penetrated less than 12" and a good number have been rapidly incapacitating. Conversely, there have been many, many people who survived being shot through-and-through and many of them have not been rapidly incapacitated. Quite honestly, I'm not really convinced that any degree of penetration is reliably lethal because, with modern medicine, handgun wounds seem to often be survivable.

It's worth pointing out that FBI testing incorporates a number of intermediate barriers and bare ballistics gel is only one part of the testing protocol.

While this is true, it is also worth pointing out that the FBI testing is geared primarily towards ammunition selection for law enforcement. Outside of some very unusual situations, heavy clothing is the only one of the FBI's intermediate barriers that someone outside of law enforcement is likely to have to contend with. I would also point out that both of the .380 loadings which met the 12" minimum in Brassfetcher's bare gel tests met the 12" minimum in his heavy clothing tests as well.

The need for a private person to shoot someone in self defense through drywall, plywood, sheet steel, etc. is exceedingly rare even within the already very rare instances of having to shoot someone in self-defense at all. Honestly, a private person shooting someone through one of those intermediate barriers is probably treading dangerously close to the line of what can be legally justified as self-defense.

Quote:
...a caliber which produces significantly greater terminal performance than a 9mm is worth the decrease in controllability so long as the decrease in controllability is not drastic.

I would agree with the statement if the word "drastic" were replaced with "significant". Because "greater terminal performance" as defined by wound volume doesn't carry with it any guarantee of a practically significant benefit in terms of incapacitation rate/incapacitation time.

So how would you define significant? You've said before that a 20-30% decrease in speed/accuracy would be unacceptable, but what about 10% or 5%? If we reach a point, as you say we do between service pistol class cartridges, that differences in penetration/wound volume become small enough to be negligible, then it seems to me that we would also reach such a point with speed/accuracy. Since speed and accuracy are, as you pointed out, easily quantified, then I would think the point at which a difference in speed/accuracy becomes significant would be relatively easy to pinpoint.

Same answer. When the experts are saying that it would take hundreds or thousands of shootings to demonstrate the difference between two calibers in the service pistol class, that should be a huge red warning sign advertising that the differences involved are very small. So the assumption that the increase in terminal performance is "relatively large" does not appear to be warranted if we're talking about practical, real-world terminal performance--i.e. incapacitation time/incapacitation rate.

If we restrict the conversation to the common service pistol cartridges of today meaning 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, .45 ACP and, to a lesser degree, .38 Special I can go along with that. I will concede that the terminal performance of those cartridges, both measurably and to some extent anecdotal, are more alike than they are different (due in no small part to the fact that modern ammunition for all of them has been designed to do pretty much the same thing).

However, I would argue that "light magnum" class cartridges like .357 Magnum and full-power 10mm and "true magnum" class cartridges like .41 and .44 Magnum may not fit into this paradigm because they have not been studied in the same manner as the service class cartridges. The 10mm was really never studied much in in full-power loadings because the FBI decided almost immediately that the recoil was too heavy for a general-issue pistol. Similarly, nearly all the other cartridges in these classes were largely ignored because they were primarily revolver cartridges and police interest at the time (late 80's) was moving rapidly towards semi-automatic handguns.

I do think it bears pointing out that not only do the "true magnum" cartridges have substantially more energy than the service class cartridges, but both they and the .357 Magnum are often loaded with bullets which behave very differently than common semi-auto bullets. The semi-jacketed hollowpoints in particular seem to have the peculiar ability to fragment in a reasonably predictable manner yet still penetrate adequately, an attribute which is extremely difficult to duplicate at service pistol class velocity in a bullet that will feed reliably in a semi-automatic handgun. The exception to this seems to be a 10mm because, in a full-power loading, it has the ability to drive a bullet fast enough to fragment yet still heavy enough to penetrate adequately despite the fragmentation. While older anecdotal reports of these cartridges' terminal effectiveness was usually glowing, they were never seriously studied with modern methods. We do know that their terminal performance is significantly and measurably different, but we do not know if that difference is good, bad, or negligible due to a lack of data. I am of the opinion that this difference probably increases terminal effectiveness to a significant degree, but due to the lack of data I can only prove it in theory.

Just to be absolutely clear, I'm not really trying to talk people into selling their 10mm or .45 pistols. If you have a pistol in one of those calibers and feel that you perform adequately with it, find that it instills confidence, and you're comfortable with it, then keep practicing with it and keep using it.

Likewise, I'm not trying to talk anyone into believing that their 9mm is a poor choice. I actually think that the 9mm is a fine defensive caliber that is more than adequate for the vast majority of defensive encounters (I wouldn't own the one I have if I didn't think this). I merely take issue with the notion that any caliber larger/more powerful than a 9mm is automatically an inferior choice due to it's increased recoil regardless of how small the increase in recoil may be.

 

[Brit]

I am enjoying the great posts here! So many interesting points of view.

An area that has not been explored too much, reliability?

It don't go bang, it ain't no good! Might be a bit simplistic, but an area I saw, with my own two eyes, in the early 80s, was our movement into IPSC, in Ontario Canada.
I was one of the 4 Instructors who started that sport, copied from our cousins in California. In order to appease the body that controlled pistol shooting, in Ontario, The Ontario Handgun Association, we came up with a training program you had to pass, in order to compete in matches, from a holster.

We called it The Black Badge Course. Still used, but modified many times, better as well.

Most shooters were already into target shooting clubs, so they could shoot well to start off with.

The 45ACP was the standard, so 1911 pistols, brand new in a box rolled up to the range! So many would not feed hard ball! Use the milder 185g target loads? A disaster!

This spawned a whole new breed of gunsmiths. And gradually fixes were done. Getting that straight walled 45 round from magazine, to chamber was a problem, fixed by better magazines, throating, polishing etc.

Moving on to the 9mm Luger as we like to call that round, for a start off, it tapers 11 thousandths of an inch, front to back, hence it works well in sub guns. Guns are better, right out of the box (like my Glock 19 4th gen) shut up already!

Which brings me to the point! Reliability, with your carry and practice rounds, is paramount! Your self-defence pistol must function first time, all the time.
Allways.

My two G19s set up the same way, have only ever malfunctioned on faulty cartridges. Lips turned in, etc. Cured that, every round I carry, or use in a match, get's dropped into a spare barrel, prior to use (of course I have never found a faulty one since I started doing that!) you can take it as read, I am a 9mm fan.

But whatever you carry, it had better work, first time, every time, all the time.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Webleymkv:

Of course that's the problem you can really only know how much wound volume/penetration "after" you know the wound track ....

Very true.

....and there's just too many variables in the world of human anatomy to reliably predict what the probability any one shot will stop the BG.

Very true indeed, and most of us discount the idea of a "one shot stop".

Well then let's look at some wound volume and penetration numbers for "premium law enforcement" ammo. We can fairly easily calculate approximate wound volume by simply multiplying the frontal area of the bullet by its penetration depth, so...

It should by now be patently obvious that we cannot really do that, or the FBI's conclusion would not be what it is.

However, I would argue that "light magnum" class cartridges like .357 Magnum and full-power 10mm and "true magnum" class cartridges like .41 and .44 Magnum may not fit into this paradigm because they have not been studied in the same manner as the service class cartridges. The 10mm was really never studied much in in full-power loadings because...

The .357 magnum has been studied at length. It is no longer in general use by law enforcement, but the .357 SIG is, and it was included in the FBI analysis.

The .41 Magnum with light loads was intended for law enforcement. It was not accepted.

I do take minor issue, however, with the notion that 12" is the minimum to be reliably lethal.

Lethality has nothing to do with it.

The 12" minimum, as I understand it, was decided upon by the FBI to account for shots through extremities and/or at oblique angles.... a "worst case scenario" if you will. In a frontal shot on a small-to-average sized individual, it would likely take significantly less to reach the vital structures (anything much over 10" and you're fairly likely to have through-and-through penetration in a straight-on frontal shot).

I would not call those "worst case" situations.

One would reasonably expect that a man attacking with a weapon might well have one arm in front of his torso. Should a bullet hit that arm, it will have to enter that arm, exit the arm (and that uses much more of the energy than the entry wound) and then enter the torso.

And why would one expect a frontal shot?

 

[mavracer]

Anyone can have any opinion that they choose to have. The problem comes when they try to support it with facts. When Urey says that it will take huge numbers of shootings to demonstrate the difference, how does one assess that to mean that caliber has a "HUGE effect"?

Well lets see when most of my friends were reading comic books, my nose was in Guns & Ammo and Shooters Bible I've read most of the Study's by all the big name players, I remember when "relative incapacitation index" was the rage and Marshal's "one shot stops" were considered as fact, I remember when HWFE came about and the FBI protocol for gel testing came about. I've also read Dr. Courtney's work on ballistic pressure wave and the effects it has.
I've also had the unique personal experience of 35 years of hunting with veterinarians and have an extremely good understanding of how flesh reacts to bullets.
So stuff that doesn't pass the sniff test gets called BS.
So when you say that there's some how a difference between 380 and 9mm where wound volume is smaller than the difference between wound volume between 9mm and even 45 ACP let alone between 9mm and 10mm.
Rest assured I have shot game with all three and enough game to tell you 9mm is much closer to a 380 than it is a 10mm.

It should by now be patently obvious that we cannot really do that, or the FBI's conclusion would not be what it is.

By now it should be patently obvious that it is that easy and that the FBI's conclusion is once again selfishly motivated to get shiny new 9mm pistols.
I'm fine with that it'll put more nice 40cal pistols and ammo on the surplus market for people that can handle a little more recoil.

 

[OldMarksman]

posted by mavracer:

...I remember when "relative incapacitation index" was the rage and Marshal's "one shot stops" were considered as fact,...

By some, maybe, but they were as easily disproved then as they are now.

And regardless, ammunition technology has advanced markedly since then.

I've also had the unique personal experience of 35 years of hunting with veterinarians and have an extremely good understanding of how flesh reacts to bullets.

Good. Then you will realize that many of the handgun loads that are considered appropriate for law enforcement and self defense against humans would not be your first choice for hunting medium to large game.

To the extent that your experience involved handgun hunting, you are also aware that the loads used thirty five yeas ago are not what most people choose today.

You will also understand that your objective is to drop the game reasonably quickly, but that in hunting, it is very seldom necessary to effect an immediate stop of a violent attacker at very close range.

For that, for reasons well articulated by Sharkbite, one would be well served to try to hit multiple times very quickly.

By now it should be patently obvious that it [measuring wound channel by multiplying bullet area by penetration] is that easy...

Ah, the voice of a true scientific expert...

...and that the FBI's conclusion is once again selfishly motivated to get shiny new 9mm pistols.

Do you have a basis for that allegation?

 

[Brit]

I can guaranty one thing for sure

...and that the FBI's conclusion is once again selfishly motivated to get shiny new 9mm pistols.

they will not be shinny!

 

[mavracer]

By some, maybe, but they were as easily disproved then as they are now.

The theory's were for the most part were sound, RII works right up til it doesn't penetrate deep enough and I'll point out Marshall was always a proponent of shoot til the threat stops. In fact much of his writings about tactics were very sound.

And regardless, ammunition technology has advanced markedly since then.

Sure but physics hasn't so as then is now larger more powerful rounds still make larger and deeper holes. And larger/deeper increase the odds of turning timers into switches and shorting the amount of time on timers.

You will also understand that your objective is to drop the game reasonably quickly

As quickly as possible, so even if the motives are different the objective is the same

Ah, the voice of a true scientific expert

Ah when your argument falls flat resort to personal attacks.

Do you have a basis for that allegation?

Are you denying they want new 9mm pistols?