Service ammo performs "about the same". Right...

[CDW4ME]

Federal data, heavy clothed gel:
http://www.le.vistaoutdoor.com/wound_ballistics/load_comparison/load_comparison.aspx
HST 124 gr. 9mm: 12'' / .59
HST 147 gr. 9mm: 12.5'' / .69
HST 230 gr. 45: 13.5'' / .87

Increasing expanded HP diameter by 21% (or more) doesn't decrease potential incapacitation time, same shot placement. Right...

I shot 9mm & 45 HST into water, penetration was "about the same" whereas diameter was not, 9mm aproximately a dime, 45 almost a quarter (pictured).

A hole the size of a dime will have "about the same" effect as one the size of a quarter. Right...

 

[Bill DeShivs]

"Potential incapacitation time" can not be relied upon.
Yes, bigger holes are generally better- but the only immediate, total incapacitation that can be relied upon is a central nervous system shot.
Fatal shots (other than CNS shots) can take minutes before incapacitation. Much harm can be done in those minutes.

 

[Sharkbite]

Unfortunately, you are using emotional investment to prove a statistical point.

In real street shooting there has been NO evidence that any fighting handgun caliber is any more effective then any other. Its a very human reaction to see the larger size of the expanded bullet and FEEL that it will cause faster incapacitation. No real evidence that it makes a real difference when pushed into a human target.

 

[JohnKSa]

Right...

How long have people been trying to prove that there's a practical and significant advantage in terminal performance for one of the service pistol cartridges over another? In all that time, what has been actually proven? As far as I can tell, nobody has been able to prove anything.

That's precisely why we're still stuck looking at gel testing results and trying to draw conclusions from that instead of having any real proof that one service pistol class caliber actually outperforms another in real-world shootings.

That's precisely why one of the best-funded law enforcement agencies in the world recently realized there was no data to justify continuing to issue .40S&W and switched to 9mm.

My advice is that if you don't feel confident carrying a 9mm, then carry whatever makes you feel confident.

Just keep in mind that going to a heavier caliber will require more practice to achieve the same level of proficiency, that practice will cost more due to the more expensive ammo and that assuming roughly similar handgun dimensions, there will be a capacity penalty to be paid.

 

[Deaf Smith]

In real street shooting there has been NO evidence that any fighting handgun caliber is any more effective then any other. Its a very human reaction to see the larger size of the expanded bullet and FEEL that it will cause faster incapacitation. No real evidence that it makes a real difference when pushed into a human target.

Google Massad Ayoob for 'evidence'. Yes there is.

But strange, what is a 'fighting handgun caliber'? Never seen this animal before.

Deaf

 

[dahermit]

When it comes to determining "stopping power" based on actual shootings, I remember someone years ago trying to do some research based on real shootings. However, it is apparent that the problem of coming to any meaningful conclusion would be problematic due to the huge number of variables that would have to be considered in such data gathering. There are just too many factors that are different in each particular shooting. It would be like comparing apples to oranges to grapes to cherries to apricots to peaches to pineapples...well, you get the idea.

 

[JohnKSa]

Google Massad Ayoob for 'evidence'. Yes there is.

Perhaps you could clarify or provide some additional information. When one googles "Massad Ayoob" the result is over 2,800 hits.

However, it is apparent that the problem of coming to any meaningful conclusion would be problematic due to the huge number of variables that would have to be considered in such data gathering.

What this means is that the differences in terminal performance are swamped (overpowered) by the other variables in the data.

That is one way of saying it. Another way of saying it would be to note that the other variables are so much more significant in real world shootings that differences due to terminal effect can not be conclusively identified in the data.

...what is a 'fighting handgun caliber'?

Not sure why this would be a strange/new concept. Is it clearer if the description "service pistol caliber" is used instead?

 

[medic15al]

In human gunshot wounds with handguns, the entrance and exit if it does is very often tiny holes. You cannot tell caliber by looking at the wound. The only factor in gunshot trauma is whether it is handgun, rifle, or shotgun due to mechanism of injury parameters.

I have observed that a handgun wound is tiny and very easily overlooked on initial assessment of the patient. There is no shocking power outside of psychological shock in reaction to being shot. (unless a CNS hit is made) And very often people do not even realize they are shot until they are feeling bad from blood lost or someone sees the hole in the clothes. Very little bleeding outside the wound.

Rifles and shotguns are a whole 'nother beast. The high velocity rifle wounds are devastating in flesh and extreme rapid incapacitation are noted in most cases.

Shotguns are very traumatic in nature due to multiple projectiles hitting at once and having a large surface area to leave large and multiple bleeds from blood vessels. Very rapid incapacitation in most cases due to rapid bleed out, but nor always guaranteed a stop.

 

[rodfac]

That's precisely why one of the best-funded law enforcement agencies in the world recently realized there was no data to justify continuing to issue .40S&W and switched to 9mm.

My advice is that if you don't feel confident carrying a 9mm, then carry whatever makes you feel confident.

Just keep in mind that going to a heavier caliber will require more practice to achieve the same level of proficiency, that practice will cost more due to the more expensive ammo and that assuming roughly similar handgun dimensions, there will be a capacity penalty to be paid.

Pretty well said, John...but it may be that the FBI, if that's who you're referring to, had issues with grip/gun size and the inability to qualify with a more substantial caliber by some of its smaller agents.

Too, it seems to me that bigger is better, a larger hole is better than a smaller one, and yes...it'll take practice to become proficient with either, it's a commitment that has to be made. Boutique bullets will not turn a .380 into a .45...for that matter I doubt they will do it for a 9mm either. Just my humble opinion...

Best Regards, Rod (PS: I regularly carry at various times: a .380, a 9mm, a .357, and of course, the gold standard, the .45, depending on clothing and destination choices)

 

[Deaf Smith]

No need to clarify Ayoob. He has spent many years studying stopping power. He is one of the original 'morgue monsters' who compiled shootings and autopsies.

And about the FBI report. It has been much misinterpreted. They gave a list of criteria. #1 was adequate penetration. Note the word 'adequate'. Once one gets past the adequate part then OTHER factors come into play. First among them is DIAMETER. Here one must think the diameter of the wound channel since the bullets can change their diameter by such as expanding or tumbling or fragmentation (but only if adequate penetration), or by giving off secondary missiles by striking bone or such.

The hint is that by giving such criteria the FBI is admitting that there are factors that DO affect performance. Not surprising since yes, bigger bullets TEND to stop better, faster ones TEND to stop better, expanding bullets (if they work) TEND to stop better. Just as good shot placement TENDs to stop better.

But when folk say such silly things as there is no 'stopping power' they just close their eyes to reality. If they do believe in such, then I would think the .32 ACP FMJ would be their round of choice (but we know it isn't.)

Deaf

 

[medic15al]

Stopping power in handguns is psychological rather than physiological.

Larger bullets may Cut more area in tissue, but it is fractions of and inch, no real difference in bleed out time.

 

[JohnKSa]

...it may be that the FBI, if that's who you're referring to, had issues with grip/gun size and the inability to qualify with a more substantial caliber by some of its smaller agents.

All of which are pertinent to the average handgun buyer who also needs to deal with grip/gun size and the issue of proficiency.

That said, they stuck with the larger caliber for about 30 years, so they managed to deal with all those issues until they decided the actual real world performance didn't justify the caliber choice they had made.

You do make an excellent point. It's important to look at all the things that affect real-world outcomes and not just to focus on one single variable. The temptation for many is to ignore everything other than terminal effect which is not a great method for making an informed decision.

...the FBI is admitting that there are factors that DO affect performance.

Sure there are. It's just that when you look at what happens in the real world you can't see the effects because other issues completely swamp the effects. Which is another way of saying that the other variables are so much more significant in real world shootings that differences due to terminal effect can not be conclusively identified in the data.

He is one of the original 'morgue monsters' who compiled shootings and autopsies.

Yes. That's the data that originally prompted the FBI to go with the larger caliber. And the data that they finally discounted when it could not be shown to correlate to what happens in the real world.

There is currently no accepted evidence that terminal performance differences within the service pistol calibers has a practically significant effect on the outcome of real-world shootings. If there were, this discussion would not be taking place because the second post in the thread would have cited it and ended the controversy.

If they do believe in such, then I would think the .32 ACP FMJ would be their round of choice (but we know it isn't.)

Nobody is suggesting that the .32ACP FMJ performs similarly to the service pistol calibers. Clearly if you move far enough up or down the scale you can change things enough that the differences do start to add up to practically significant benefits/losses. This discussion is about the various members of the service pistol calibers.

They gave a list of criteria. #1 was adequate penetration.

Penetration is very important. If a defender is forced to achieve a physiological stop, adequate penetration is required. This is why there is a practical lower limit to service pistol caliber choice. When it is no longer possible to achieve adequate penetration with expanding ammunition, it's time to move back up the scale a little.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Sorry but such as Ayoob has shown in the "real world" there is a difference in effect between caliber used. A .45 jhp most certainly does better than a .380 fmj. Sure there are exceptions, but overall larger diameter bullets TEND to stop better, faster bullets TEND to stop better, better constructed bullets TEND to stop better, shot placement TENDS to stop better.

Oh, and I ain't the 'average' shooter.


Deaf

 

[JohnKSa]

Sorry but such as Ayoob has shown in the "real world" there is a difference in effect between caliber used.

Ok. I'm not familiar with that data. Let's take 9mm and .45ACP.

How much faster will the .45ACP stop a person than the 9mm?
How much less often does the .45ACP fail to stop than the 9mm?

A .45 jhp most certainly does better than a .380 fmj.

From the beginning, this thread has been focused on service pistol calibers/ammo.

Oh, and I ain't the 'average' shooter.

That comment was made in response to a comment by another participant in the discussion, not in reference to you or to anything you posted on this thread.

...overall larger diameter bullets TEND to stop better, faster bullets TEND to stop better, better constructed bullets TEND to stop better...

Let's take all this as gospel for the sake of argument. Unless these tendencies are sufficiently large as to have a practical effect (one that's actually observable) on real world shootings, then they provide no practical value.

 

[Sharkbite]

Let's take all this as gospel for the sake of argument. Unless these tendencies are sufficiently large as to have a practical effect (one that's actually observable) on real world shootings, then they provide no practical value

And thats where people get hung up. Of course an expanded .45 bullet that penetrates an equal distance will cause more damage...ITS BIGGER.

BUT, does it cause ENOUGH additional damage to make it stop attackers FASTER???

There is NO real wolrld data to support that conclusion, and the trama Doc's say the actual wounds channels are so close as to be indistinguishable from each othe (9mm, .40, .45).

So, no trend towards the bigger rounds ACTUALLY stopping people better. No medical science to show it either...hmmmm

 

[Deaf Smith]

It's not "faster" John, it's a higher percentage of one shot stops. That is what the TENDS means.

More attackers TENDED to be stopped with one good hit with certain combinations of cartridges (bullet diameter, bullet construction, velocity, that placement.)

Over thousands of shootings they have found larger bullets TEND to stop better, faster bullets TEND to stop better, better constructed bullets TEND to stop better, good shot placement TENDS to stop better.

Even my wife, who has been an ER nurse, CV ICU nurse, CV OR nurse, head of CV Nursing, says in the years she was an ER nurse people who were shot with lower caliber weapons many times walked into the ER (vocally complaining about being shot). As the caliber rose, more and more tended to have to be carried in. Only ones that just about always were carried in, and in bad shape, were those shot with shotguns.

What larger, more powerful rounds give is a more likelihood of immediate incapacitation. It's not 'X' number of seconds the attacker will cease and detest.

Deaf

 

[JohnKSa]

It's not "faster" John, it's a higher percentage of one shot stops.

Fair enough. So using the data you're referencing, what's the real-world difference in the percentage of one shot stops between the two cartridges?

That is what the TENDS means.

I know what "tends" means and that's the problem. It doesn't provide any useful information. Since terminal effect isn't the only variable affected by caliber choice, common sense tells us to weigh all the different variables and make a reasonable choice based on the available evidence.

We should run through a thought process something like the following...

So, if I'm giving up capacity, or having to go to a larger handgun, what am I getting for it? If I'm giving up shooting performance due to higher recoil/muzzle rise/slower splits, what am I getting for it? If my ammo and practice costs go up, what do I get in return?

I get a "tendency" towards better incapacitation.

Ok, how much of a tendency? Is it worth giving up 3 rounds of capacity, paying 15% more for ammo and going to a carry gun that's 2 oz heavier? What about paying 20% more for ammo, giving up 5 rounds and going to a gun that's 5oz heavier? Is it worth going from a consistent ability to make par on a Bill Drill to failing to do so 50% of the time?** What about if all that's given up is 5 rounds of capacity?

Well, the experts say that the tendency is so small that no one has been able to accurately quantify it. One expert speculated it might make a difference in 1 out of a hundred shootings. In fact, it's so small that one of the best funded LE agencies in the world states that they see no reason to concern themselves with it any longer.

Hmmm. If the tendency is so small it can't be accurately quantified then why would I give up ANYTHING to gain it?​

The fact is that even "over thousands of shootings" the one thing that has become clear is that the practical effect on stopping power/incapacitation due to terminal performance differences among the service pistol calibers is small. So small that the other variables involved swamp it and make it impossible to not only quantify accurately but also to even verify that a practical effect actually exists with any level of confidence.

As the caliber rose, more and more tended to have to be carried in.

I think everyone agrees that if you look at the entire handgun caliber spectrum from .22 short up to .500Mag that there will be a practically significant difference in terminal performance. What we're talking about here is comparing a narrow performance range--just the service pistol calibers.

**Performance Center Pocket Rocket
Smith & Wesson's Popular M&P Shield gets a new ported barrel, fiber-optic sights and a great trigger for less than $500.
January 2016 Guns & Ammo Magazine
by Patrick Sweeney

<The article is a review of two identical ported M&P Shields from the Performance Center, one in 9mm & the other in .40S&W.>
Take for example the classic Bill Drill, which is to draw and fire six rounds on an IPSC target at 7 yards. With 9mm, I could readily shoot a par score: six A hits in two seconds flat. With the .40, I was about 50/50, either going over time or pushing a shot out of the A zone. ​

 

[CDW4ME]

Unfortunately, you are using emotional investment to prove a statistical point.

No, I'm looking at expanded bullets that penetrate about the same, but one is about the size of a dime the other a quarter.

Bigger hole more likely to generate desired result, logic not emotion.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Fair enough. So using the data you're referencing, what's the real-world difference in the percentage of one shot stops between the two cartridges?

Which versions of the two cartridges? FMJ .45 .vs. JHP 9mm? What KIND of JHP? Older JHPs. What distance? What kind of weapon (barrel length affects velocity?)

Just go to 'The Back Woodsman', or Glocktalk, where Ayoob post (you do know he was a police Captain, founded Lethal Force Institute, now known as the Ayoob Group), prolific book and magazine article writer, etc... and ask him for specific data like you desire.

No, I'm looking at expanded bullets that penetrate about the same, but one is about the size of a dime the other a quarter.

Bigger hole more likely to generate desired result, logic not emotion.

Exactly. Then pick the largest caliber/weapon combination you can control (as in shoot well), carry, and if need be conceal.

I think a guy named Jeff Cooper opined on that subject many years ago.

Deaf

 

[Frank Ettin]

There is data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology. What all that shows with regard to self defense could be summarized as follows:

1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.
   
   
4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.
   
   
5. And that's probably as good as we can do.

I've posted the following before and might as well post it again here:

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

• The goal is to stop the assailant.
  
  
• There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:
  
  
  • psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
    
    
  • massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
    
    
  • breaking major skeletal support structures
    
    
  • damaging the central nervous system.
  
  Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.
  
  Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.
  
  Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.
  
  The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.
  
  So as a rule of thumb --
  
  
  • More holes are better than fewer holes.
    
    
  • Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
    
    
  • Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
    
    
  • Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
    
    
  • There are no magic bullets.
    
    
  • There are no guarantees.
  
  
• With regard to the issue of psychological stops see
  
  
  • this study, entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" (yes, the very study referenced by boltomatic) by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates:
    
    
    
    ​
    
    
    As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):

    ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...
    
    In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

    
    
    1. There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.
       
       
       • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.
         
         
       • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.
         
         
       • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.
         
         
       • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.
         
         
       • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.
       
       
    2. The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.
       
       
       • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.
         
         
       • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.
       
       
    3. And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.
       
       
    4. From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.
  
  
• Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:

  ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.
  
  The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

• And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":
  
  
  • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):

    In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

    
    
  • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):

    The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

    
    
  • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):

    Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

  
  
• And sometimes a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:

  ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....