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

[T. O'Heir]

Service ammo is generally provided by the lowest bidder for the contract. Just like the issue handgun/firearm is chosen by politicians based on the lowest bid.
There is no such thing as "stopping power". Physics doesn't allow it.
Frank's "Pretty much..." 1 and 2 need to be bigger.

 

[mete]

I'll repeat what I've said before . Going back to the 70s and 80s I used feral dogs and woodchucks for targets .Jugs of water , gel just don't have the same insides ! Also these tests were before the most modern JHPs were made.
I watched the reaction to hits with 9mm ,45acp and later .40S&W.I only was interested in animals not immediately killed.
9mm, the animal RAN back toward his hole .
45 and 40 , the animal WALKED back to his hole !!!
That's it folks , big bore is better ! I didn't really find significant differece between 40 and 45 .

 

[Model12Win]

The only time the common calibers really shine are in .357 magnum 125 grain and 10mm loads and above.

Those are good stoppers for sure and for certain.

 

[Oysterboy]

This is why I carry a 10mm.

 

[K_Mac]

I carry a 9 most of the time, occasionally a 380 and rarely a.357. I shoot my 9 better, both faster and more accurately than anything else. I have studied the data. Given that and the increased capacity of a 9 and I am confident I have made the best choice for me. Y'all shoot what works best for you.

 

[JohnKSa]

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?)

All very good questions. Because those are some more of the variables that have made it impossible to actually define a practical difference in terminal performance between the two cartridges. Because there's a lot more to it than just expanded bullet size--and that's before you get into the issues I mentioned in my post.

However, that's dodging the issue. You claimed that there was definitive data showing a practical difference in one shot stops between the two calibers. When I ask you to provide it, you respond with obfuscation instead of data.

Rather than go round and round on loadings, barrel lengths, velocities, etc., let's make it as simple as possible. Pick any 9mm loading and any .45ACP loading for which there is definitive data showing the difference in one shot stops and provide it.

There is data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology.

Ellifritz's data underscores the problems with trying to actually come up with definitive data.

According to his results, the .45ACP outperforms the 9mm but the .38special outperforms them both. Clearly that makes no sense at all and the reason it doesn't is that the "data" is being swamped by variables that have nothing to do with terminal performance.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Ellifritz's data underscores the problems with trying to actually come up with definitive data.

According to his results, the .45ACP outperforms the 9mm but the .38special outperforms them both. Clearly that makes no sense at all and the reason it doesn't is that the "data" is being swamped by variables that have nothing to do with terminal performance.

Or in somewhat different terms, the samples are so small that the apparent differences really aren't meaningful.

 

[JohnKSa]

Or in somewhat different terms, the samples are so small that the apparent differences really aren't meaningful.

That's half of it.

The other half is that the reason it would take huge samples to see the differences is because they are so small.

What it all boils down to is that the argument continues NOT because the practical differences in terminal effect between the service pistol calibers are large, but because they are so small nobody has been able to definitively quantify them, or even conclusively prove that they exist.

Any time a data set ranks the effectiveness of the 38SP, .45ACP and 9mm in that order, whatever is making the difference in the data is obviously not based on terminal performance.

 

[44 AMP]

You cannot tell caliber by looking at the wound.

Sometimes, you can. Saw a fellow who took a .357Mag 160gr SWC through the shin. Front to back. Entrance would was a perfect, clean .35 cal hole. Exit wound was not....

Perhaps the main reason that actual shooting data doesn't clearly point to one thing or another is because each person is different, each shooting is different.

Everything that gets to the right place works. Getting it there is more the responsibility of the shooter than the bullet.

 

[Deaf Smith]

You guys need to talk to Massad Ayoob on Glocktalk and ask HIM about the number of shootings he recorded before you talk about sample size.

Maybe David Spauling to. Or Evan Marshal.

Deaf

 

[Frank Ettin]

You guys need to talk to Massad Ayoob on Glocktalk and ask HIM about the number of shootings he recorded before you talk about sample size....

The sample sizes relied upon by Ellifritz are specified in his study. See the link in post 20.

Sample sizes in these studies tend to be very small -- from fewer than fifty up to perhaps a few hundred. But as John has pointed out, given the small differences and given the number of variable which could affect results much larger samples (by several orders of magnitude at least) would be needed to yield statistically identify those small differences with any meaningful confidence.

 

[Deaf Smith]

But I'm referring to Ayoob, Spauling, and Marshall, not Ellifritz.

Their data was much larger. And their basic conclusion was, larger bullets TEND to stop better, faster bullets TEND.....etc.

I don't put a lot of stock on one particular specific bullet make as manufacturing processes vary over time, but I look to the overall trend, which is.. larger diameter bullets TEND to stop better, faster bullets TEND to stop better...etc.

Deaf

 

[Frank Ettin]

But I'm referring to Ayoob, Spauling, and Marshall, not Ellifritz.

Their data was much larger.....

Then tell us what their sample sizes were. You brought it up, so you need to furnish the data. We don't have to go hunting for the evidence to support your claims.

 

[Model12Win]

One thing about the whole energy and caliber issue, a lesson from the East:

The Russians replaced the notoriously fast (high velocity) 7.62x25mm Tokarev round in the early 1950s with the much slower, weaker 9x18mm Makarov cartridge.

While not the only reason for switching to the PM handgun vs the TT, the Soviets actually considered the effectiveness of 9x18mm ammo to be equal or even slightly superior to the older 7.62x25mm load. Why? Because the Tokarev round had a tendency to just zip right through an enemy, leaving a small .30 caliber wound. It was plenty fast, nearly 50% faster than the superseding 9x18mm round, but this velocity combined with the bullet's profile and small diameter caused no worse wounding effect vs the slower but fatter and blunter 9x18mm ball round.

So what I'm getting at is energy (and velocity) are not the end all, be all of effectiveness. Even a "weaker" bullet can be just as effective. Above all else, shot placement is key.

 

[Deaf Smith]

If you guys have never heard nor read the works of Ayoob, Spauling, or Marshall then it sound like ignorance abounds here on the subject of stopping power.

These guys were cops, wrote on the subject for years, published book on the subject. And yet all I here is "I know nothing".

Doubt you've heard of Martin Fackler either.

Deaf

 

[Frank Ettin]

If you guys have never heard nor read the works of Ayoob, Spauling, or Marshall then it sound like ignorance abounds here on the subject of stopping power.

These guys were cops, wrote on the subject for years, published book on the subject. And yet all I here is "I know nothing".

Doubt you've heard of Martin Fackler either....

Garbage! You make claims and then can't support them -- throw away lines and cheap rhetorical tricks. If you make a claim you need to furnish the evidence and data supporting it.

Oh, and the word is "hear" not "here" (last sentence of the second paragraph).

BTW, I taught with Mas -- a few years ago at one of his MAG-40 classes in Sierra Vista, Arizona.

 

[Sharkbite]

Deaf..

All of the studies you point to (and yes, i know em) are from the late '70 & early '80s. Bullet design and construction science has come a long way since then. Times and thoughts on things change.

Heck, aint nobody but us Dinosaurs shooting Weaver anymore

The people that study such things now pretty much agree. 9, 40, 45...not much real world difference with similar shot placement. They all work...none of em work well. Too many other variables play a MUCH larger role in stopping the attack. The biggest ones we can control is shot placement and fast follow up shots.

A poor hit with a 45 is still a poor hit and wont have as much effect as a good hit with a 9.

Given equal hits, they both do about the same damage (or close enough that nobody can tell the difference upon examining the wound).

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Deaf Smith:

What larger, more powerful rounds give is a more likelihood of immediate incapacitation.

If and only if they land in the same place.

And about the FBI report. It has been much misinterpreted.

True.

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.

Forget the " list". What they concluded was that the most important factor is what is actually hit. Penetration enters into that, as does placement. And so does diameter, to much a lesser extent.

So, what do we mean by "placement"? We mean what the bullet hits within the three dimensional body of the assailant. No , it is about not how the shooter aligns the sights and pulls the trigger.

No one can reasonably visualize where those jostling and hidden key target are within a moving, turning and twisting assailant moving at, say, five meters per second, and shoot at them. Hitting---placement, in this context--is a stochastic process. It's a matter of chance.

More shots fired faster will greatly increase the probability of "well placed" hits and therefore that of an effective stop, all other things being equal.

Larger diameter projectiles (expanded) will also help, all other things being equal, but it doesn't take much of a mathematician to show that the effect will be small indeed.

What it will then boil down to is how fast one can fire how many controlled shots with what gun. Probably the biggest factor in that is recoil.

 

[5thShock]

Since terminal effectiveness is influenced by a constellation of disparate variables, all of which may or may not be present in any given individual case, it would obviously behoove us to be constantly mindful of the vagaries of visibility, psychological states of shooter and shootee, the thickness of clothing (or, indeed, the complete lack of it), any other potential physical inhibitors of desired kinetic outcomes and, of course, the general state and shape of the local segment of the space/time continuum. Only when these, and other, factors are allowed and controlled for can any calculation be expected to arrive a reasonably accurate prediction of the total stopification delivered to the target by the various calibers in question.

 

[44 AMP]

What it will then boil down to is how fast one can fire how many controlled shots with what gun. Probably the biggest factor in that is recoil.

On last night's local news, two shots from a stag handled 6" .22cal SA (they showed the gun) middle aged man, DRT.

Perhaps we should all carry .22s??

This is not entirely a joke. One COP I used to know used a Ruger Mk I as his personal defense gun (by choice). Exceptional fellow, could stand with his back to the target, and on cue, turn and dump the entire mag into the "eyes" of a silhouette target in about 2 seconds.

I don't think it matters WHAT you use, as much as it matters how well you can use it.