Stopping Power by Caliber Part 2

[bwaites]

[SIZE="6"]An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power[/SIZE]
[SIZE="5"]Greg Ellifritz[/SIZE]
Discussion

I really would have liked to break it down by individual bullet type, but I didn’t have enough data points to reach a level of statistical significance. Getting accurate data on nearly1800 shootings was hard work. I couldn’t imagine breaking it down farther than what I did here. I also believe the data for the .25, .32 and .44 magnum should be viewed with suspicion. I simply don’t have enough data (in comparison to the other calibers) to draw an accurate comparison. I reported the data I have, but I really don’t believe that a .32 ACP incapacitates people at a higher rate than the .45 ACP!

One other thing to look at is the 9mm data. A huge number (over half) of 9mm shootings involved ball ammo. I think that skewed the results of the study in a negative manner. One can reasonable expect that FMJ ammo will not stop as well as a state of the art expanding bullet. I personally believe that the 9mm is a better stopper than the numbers here indicate, but you can make that decision for yourself based on the data presented.

Some interesting findings:

I think the most interesting statistic is the percentage of people who stopped with one shot to the torso or head. There wasn’t much variation between calibers. Between the most common defensive calibers (.38, 9mm, .40, and .45) there was a spread of only eight percentage points. No matter what gun you are shooting, you can only expect a little more than half of the people you shoot to be immediately incapacitated by your first hit.

The average number of rounds until incapacitation was also remarkably similar between calibers. All the common defensive calibers required around 2 rounds on average to incapacitate. Something else to look at here is the question of how fast can the rounds be fired out of each gun. The .38spl probably has the slowest rate of fire (long double action revolver trigger pulls and stout recoil in small revolvers) and the fewest rounds fired to get an incapacitation (1.87). Conversely the 9mm can probably be fired fastest of the common calibers and it had the most rounds fired to get an incapacitation (2.45). The .40 (2.36) and the .45 (2.08) split the difference. It is my personal belief that there really isn’t much difference between each of these calibers. It is only the fact that some guns can be fired faster than others that causes the perceived difference in stopping power. If a person takes an average of 5 seconds to stop after being hit, the defender who shoots a lighter recoiling gun can get more hits in that time period. It could be that fewer rounds would have stopped the attacker (given enough time) but the ability to fire more quickly resulted in more hits being put onto the attacker. It may not have anything to do with the stopping power of the round.

Another data piece that leads me to believe that the majority of commonly carried defensive rounds are similar in stopping power is the fact that all four have very similar failure rates. If you look at the percentage of shootings that did not result in incapacitation, the numbers are almost identical. The .38, 9mm, .40, and .45 all had failure rates of between 13% and 17%.

Some people will look at this data and say "He's telling us all to carry .22s". That's not true. Although this study showed that the percentage of people stopped with one shot are similar between almost all handgun cartridges, there's more to the story. 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.

One other factor to consider is that the majority of these shootings did NOT involve shooting through intermediate barriers, cover or heavy clothing. If you anticipate having to do this in your life (i.e. you are a police officer and may have to shoot someone in a car), again, I would lean towards the larger or more powerful rounds.

What I believe that my numbers show is that in the majority of shootings, the person shot merely gives up without being truly incapacitated by the bullet. In such an event, almost any bullet will perform admirably. If you want to be prepared to deal with someone who won't give up so easily, or you want to be able to have good performance even after shooting through an intermediate barrier, I would skip carrying the "mouse gun" .22s, .25s and .32s.

Now compare the numbers of the handgun calibers with the numbers generated by the rifles and shotguns. For me there really isn’t a stopping power debate. All handguns suck! If you want to stop someone, use a rifle or shotgun!

What matters even more than caliber is shot placement. Across all calibers, if you break down the incapacitations based on where the bullet hit you will see some useful information.

Head shots = 75% immediate incapacitation

Torso shots = 41% immediate incapacitation

Extremity shots (arms and legs) = 14% immediate incapacitation.

No matter which caliber you use, you have to hit something important in order to stop someone!


Conclusion

This study took me a long time and a lot of effort to complete. Despite the work it took, I'm glad I did it. The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s. I've stopped worrying about trying to find the “ultimate” bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough “stopping power”. Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important.

Take a look at the data. I hope it helps you decide what weapon to carry. No matter which gun you choose, pick one that is reliable and train with it until you can get fast accurate hits. Nothing beyond that really matters!

[warped]

In my professional opinion and due to the people I know who have actually used 9mm in combat and in personal defense or police work, the 9mm is highly underated when used with a good bullet.

9mm with a hyrdoshock or corbon is fantastic, in +p+ it mimics .357mag in performance.

I know of one cop that put a bad guy down who was wearing a thick leather bikers jacket and a leather vest over that, one shot took out his heart, autopsy revealed massive trauma and a good deal of penetration coming to stop at the spinal cord.

It is always going to come down to shot placement and using good ammo.

[bwaites]

I agree. My next purchase will be a concealed carry, small 9mm. I was going to go .380, but the baby 9mm's are no bigger and carry more energy.

However, the data somewhat support my occasional carry of a .22 long. I never feel underarmed with it, but some people would laugh. 10 shots with a quick reload is not equal to 17 shots with a quick reload from my XDm .40, but I suspect would handle virtually every situation I might be faced with in real life, as opposed to the "what if" scenarios we can all dream up.

[RangerRick]

I agree. My next purchase will be a concealed carry, small 9mm. I was going to go .380, but the baby 9mm's are no bigger and carry more energy.

However, the data somewhat support my occasional carry of a .22 long. I never feel underarmed with it, but some people would laugh. 10 shots with a quick reload is not equal to 17 shots with a quick reload from my XDm .40, but I suspect would handle virtually every situation I might be faced with in real life, as opposed to the "what if" scenarios we can all dream up.

Yes, an in a large percentage of personal defense cases, just drawing a weapon will end the confrontation, or prevent one from starting to begin with.

[RStewart]

What I conclude from this is that you should use/carry whichever of the calibers (9, 45, etc.) that you feel more comfortable with. I prefer 9's, but have friends that swear by 40's and 45's.

[bwaites]

I agree, I am comfortable with my XDm in .40 and my Kimber in .45 in most weather, but when it gets hot, and thin shirts and shorts are more comfortable, they become difficult to conceal.

Thus, I have a special pocket sewn into my strong side cargo pocket that holds my .22 Walther perfectly upright and is easily accessed. I can get to it from both seated and standing with minimal movement.

[VASCAR2]

Proves to me if I think things could go bad I'll grab my rifle or shotgun. I'll only rely on my pistols if I can't have my AR or semi auto shotgun. I'm a big believer in being able to use what you brung. Pistol is better than nothing but not as good as a rifle/shotgun.

[bwaites]

10-4 on that Vascar! Unfortunately, carrying a shotgun into the movie theater tends to get people a little riled up!

[RStewart]

Nothing like racking the pump on a 12 gauge to get someone's attention.

Unfortunately, carrying a shotgun into the movie theater tends to get people a little riled up!

Just tell them you're going to a Matrix movie marathon!

[pinzgauer]

Thus, I have a special pocket sewn into my strong side cargo pocket that holds my .22 Walther perfectly upright and is easily accessed.

Rule one!!!!

[warped]

Sorry guys but counting on racking a shotgun means you were needing to defend yourself and then had to actually chamber a round giving away your position and allowing someone to send a hail of bullets your way.

The only sound they might hear is the safety coming off (if there is a safety) other than that it's lights out.

[warped]

Keltec 9mm is damned god and very inexpensive as well.

[noone]

With "NORMAL" handgun rounds (below the 44 mag), bullet placement is far more important than the weight, velocity, or caliber of the projectile. By "normal" rounds, I'm referring to things like 38spcl, 44 spcl, 45ACP, 357 mag, 9mm, 45 Colt, 40 S&W, and similar rounds. I'm excluding the 22, 25, 32, and similar rounds.

The FBI did extensive testing following the shooting where agents were badly outgunned by 2 outlaws in Florida I think. The conclusion was that a handgun should be around 40 caliber, bullet weighing around 180 grains, and going around 1000 FPS.

What I found ironic about that, is that the FBI's conclusion is nearly identical to what people in 1875 knew. It took a round like the 44 spcl, or 45 Colt and similar rounds to be effective.

I can imagine some old geezer saying something like "Hell son, we knew that back in 1875. And you spent how much money to come up with the same thing we have known for 125 years?"

[pinzgauer]

The FBI did extensive testing following the shooting where agents were badly outgunned by 2 outlaws in Florida I think. The conclusion was that a handgun should be around 40 caliber, bullet weighing around 180 grains, and going around 1000 FPS.

And yet (from memory) the fatal shots on the bad guys were a 9mm and a .38 spec (fired from a .357).

My read of that situation says more about how prepared the bad guys were than weapons. They did not have super weapons against a superior force.... modest shotgun, .357, and a mini-14 with no tacticool accessories. Yet read the internut forums where mini's are incapable of performance, etc.

The good guys had two shotguns as well, which were fired with virtually no effect. Not that they are ineffective, just they were fired with no effect.

After recently watching an experienced LEO shoot fairly poorly at the range with a $2k carbine loaded with tacticool, it made me realize that training & practice mattered more than the accessories. He was enamored with the cheek weld the VLTOR stock offered, but you would not know it from his 50 yd targets! No offense to the gent, he was super nice and sincere. And I expect is not given enough practice ammo, underpaid & overworked, etc. And he was at the range practicing, to his credit.

Would the '86 shootout have ended differently if all the cops had patrol carbines? Quite probably. But I suspect the bad guys would have up-gunned as well.

[bwaites]

The mini14 is a lethal tool at the ranges of the Miami shooting. It's not particularly accurate past 100 yards, but at 20-30 yards its a scary weapon.

Having pistols vs a rifle, even one shooting the supposedly anemic .223, is not an even match.

The shotguns in the fight were not used to best advantage, certainly.

Dr W. French Andersons book is a good read about what happened, the results of each weapon, and what people did right, (and more importantly perhaps, what they did wrong!).

What I find interesting is that the 9mm was vilified for lack of penetration because of this shootout, so the FBI did testing and moved to the 10mm, which too many agents found difficult to shoot well and which had overpenetration issues, so they then moved to the .40 S&W, proclaiming that it had less chance of overpenetration than the 10mm. BUT...wait, wasn't the reason the FBI went to the 10mm was because the 9mm didn't penetrate well enough? Hmmm....our gubmint does some weird stuff!

[RStewart]

Sorry guys but counting on racking a shotgun means you were needing to defend yourself and then had to actually chamber a round giving away your position and allowing someone to send a hail of bullets your way.

The only sound they might hear is the safety coming off (if there is a safety) other than that it's lights out.

I personally don't own a pump. That was advice from a LEO to someone who doesn't want to keep a loaded gun in the house.

My home defense weapon is a Browning Light 12 with 00 buckshot. I only have to take the safety off. That and a few well placed pistolas!

[pinzgauer]

The mini14 is a lethal tool at the ranges of the Miami shooting. It's not particularly accurate past 100 yards, but at 20-30 yards its a scary weapon.

And yet the volumes of internet conventional wisdom is they are a waste of time, sub-standard, unreliable, never finished a carbine class, etc. Much less the never ending debates about stopping power, 7075 vs 6061-T651 billet lowers, 4140 vs 4150, etc.

One other interesting stat from another site..... one well known carbine expert who teaches lot's of classes is indicating they see typical 3-5 MOA from carbines. While I've heard of mini's shooting badly, I've never seen one worse than that. I know my old & well worn GB SS mini is nowhere near as accurate as my grendels, and probably even my son's 5.56 m4gery. But I can run it with my eyes closed, chamber a round & press check, and be in business much faster than my AR's. Especially in the dark. So it's my go-to gun at the house.

The mishandled 10mm FBI testing is even worse... I shoot 10mm since the Delta Elite was released, and it's laughable to me that the folks who said it was too hard to handle now advocate super light 9 and 40 wonder pistols. And .45's for entry work. 10mm even in full power loadings is much easier to shoot fast & accurate when shot side by side in gov models. Just less rock. Stings the palm harder, but rocks less when used with full power loadings. Same for the wonder-9 crop of sigs, etc. And also much easier to hit with at 25 yards or longer, which is why I switched from .45 to 10mm.

[LRRPF52]

My read of that situation says more about how prepared the bad guys were than weapons.

Roger that. Whenever I hear the 1986 Miami incident come up, and the conversation turns to a caliber/firearm debate, I feel that the focus has immediately gone off-track. I remember when it happened, and have followed as many stories and detailed analyses of it since I was a kid. I never truly understood what happened there until I became an 11B, and learned what it meant to aggressively pursue the fight with your cohorts. These guys learned lessons that are impossible to learn in a traditional Law Enforcement training or operational environment, in my opinion. Platt was an 11B3 with Airborne and Ranger training, although I don't know if he actually graduated from Ranger School. Matix was an honorably-discharged Marine who joined the Army later, and they met at Fort Campbell in the 101st. There are still a lot of unanswered questions to me about these guys' backgrounds. The story gets stranger the more you look at their history.

Either way, Platt obviously knew how to shoot, move, and communicate, and had spent a lot of time in his life living with the 360 degree, predatory animal mindset you gain after living in the woods conducting combat patrols day-in and day-out. When reviewing Platt's actions, especially how he demonstrated no fear after he and Matix had "burned" the FBI surveillance following them using a cul-de-sac counter-tracking technique, you start to get a glimpse of that mindset. As he and Matix (driver) pulled out of the dead-end and they drove passed the FBI agents, he loaded the 30rd magazine into the Mini-14 while staring directly at them, basically saying to them, "bring it on". That was very unusual for them to encounter, but they figured that since they were "FBI", they were better-prepared/immune/well-trained.

Once they trapped Matix and Platt between the cars (an excellent use of vehicle barricading BTW), Platt came out aggressively shooting with very effective shot placement. Wherever he saw a threat, he would engage that threat, and bound to it immediately after seeing it go down, then once upon the fallen agent, he would pump more rounds into him as he took the agent's positions for his own. This type of shooting and moving is woven into the small unit tactics that light infantry units practice as their bread and butter, and while it may seem brutal to outsiders and even other military professionals from the soft skills, it is effective.

We always trained to shoot wounded combatants as we approached them because they were not behind our limit of advance (LOA), so as long as you were moving forward, down and writhing enemy combatants were fair game to place a controlled pair into their face or head as you swept across the objective area. This was always declared completely fair game according to Hague or Geneva conventions and our JAG officers, since the combatant can still be a threat until he is confirmed neutralized, and security has not yet been established. The moment we passed the combatant, moved to the LOA, consolidated & reorganized, and fell back onto the objective, we would be required to provide first aid and humanitarian assistance to any surviving wounded.

Every patrolling school and Squad or Platoon evals would include this practice, and it is a basic practice for infantry, Rangers, and other fighting units. The FBI agents made a lot of very well-placed shots on both Matix and Platt, but shot placement is not enough to compensate for a well-trained gunfighter who kicks-in his thinking, active killer skillset. Many people mistakenly label these types of actions as "reverting to your training". That phrase is very misleading. I believe he was fully-aware of his actions, and was quickly making decisions from moment to moment, not just mindlessly executing a predetermined maneuver or drill. Since Matix was immediately incapacitated, Platt was left to face the 6 agents himself.

His actions demonstrate how aggression, violence of action, speed, and practical marksmanship skills all come together. While the FBI agents demonstrated excellent shot placement (to include head and center chest shots), and a resolve to pursue the fight from mostly static positions, they had absolutely no concept of the level of aggression that exists within the organizations that Platt and Matix were a part of, and this major disparity is what allowed Platt to dominate them alone, causing the loss of life and significant injuries to the agents. While it is rare to come across assailants with these skill sets, it is increasing in likelihood due to the number of narco-traffickers spilling across our borders, who almost always have a military or paramilitary background behind them, with little or no moral resistance to killing.

It would behoove those who are interested in continuing their natural lives to learn to be more aggressive, more lethal, and more violent than those they may potentially encounter, because the line-up could be very formidable. Many hardened criminals have been breathing violence since infancy, so the order is tall and the training requirements are extensive. No amount of firearms training that focuses only on marksmanship, super-calibers, or badges will ever overcome a well-trained human predator who has switched his kill-switch to "engage". This is more true for the LEO who, by nature of their profession, deals with the more violent population of society on a daily basis.

If you are not incorporating VIOLENCE into your shoot training that is meant for protection, you are several steps behind many of those who will cognitively decide to do you bodily harm, and many of them practice shooting as well, with much larger budgets for ammunition than any of us will ever be able to afford. The narco-traffickers "practice" in real-world killings regularly. There were over 36,000 homicides in Mexico last year alone, and many mass graves still have not been discovered.

If your defensive shoot training is conducted on a flat range, with no stress, movement, or pain and heavy breathing...you're short-changing yourself.

LRRPF52

[bwaites]

LRRPF52, well stated. Time for you to start a school! Or tell us where to go to get that kind of training, because I just don't think it is commonly available.

With Valhalla closed, does ICE or someone else offer that same level of training and facility?

[LRRPF52]

Gents,

While I think weekend/week-long marksmanship courses are essential to honing your skills, none of those facilities or courses can make up for years & years spent living as an animal in nature, with other like-minded animals. That is basically what an 11B does, usually with a majority of guys who score exceptionally-higher on the ASVAB, and are adventure-seekers with a family history of dare-devils and warrior spirits that often runs in bloodlines for generations. This may sound bogus, but that's the way I feel about it after looking at it from so many different angles.

Anyway, guys with a good hunting background and aggressive team sports seem to have good mentalities for it, but you change as a person when you spend more of your time outdoors thinking about killing and being killed as a job description, with your older brothers to pass on lessons that are based in antiquity about killing first to avoid being killed.

When I run courses, I emphasize the violent, conscious thinking and decision-making aspect of conflict, and how that practically manifests itself in techniques, tactics, and procedures. It's based on staying in the frontal cortex thinking, versus brain-stem responses for channeling the fight or flight response. A lot of us have the tendency to isolate ourselves from the reality of the extreme discomfort of being involved in a violent, homicidal encounter.

We do this by asserting and assuring ourselves that one particular caliber, weapon, technique, school, system, holster, etc. will insulate us from the violence. They won't...they are tools meant to facilitate violence by design and definition. That is the first step in approaching this subject from a practical, "live to conquer" mindset that I rarely see in many training courses, martial arts, etc. Embrace the violent/homicidal confrontation when you feel that it is imminent...embrace it aggressively and you exponentially increase your chances of emerging alive.

I can't emphasize that enough. Everyone I have interviewed who has prevailed in gunfights either knew or learned a hard lesson that day/night. One thing I can recommend is getting involved in no-BS martial arts that allow you to physically spar often with dissimilar opponents with very little time wasted on talking about techniques, dojo etiquette, and all the nuances that surround much of the eastern martial arts trends. Spend as much time using your natural body weapons on heavy canvas bags, and take your training heart rate threshold to higher levels with continuous smoker workouts that last long, and come fast and furious. There is a lot to be said for high levels of mental-physical fitness.

Everyone can practice increasing their perceptive habits throughout the day. Every, and I mean every time I drive through an intersection, I am imagining the worst possible chain of events that can happen with the given actors in that intersection that I actively see throughout the process: pedestrians, cyclists, cars, trucks, vehicles obstructing my vision, etc. I watch and think moment to moment what my proaction will be for each action. When I see the green light, I get more attentive...not less, while the majority of motorists might not even know they just blew through an intersection as they talk on their phones or pick up spilled french fries from their laps.

The same goes for when I'm walking. These are habits from walking the woods that I could never get rid of, nor would I want to. I know if someone is approaching me from 100yds away from my rear before I even see them. Call me a liar, throw the BS flag, but it's true and common among guys with that background. The best way I can explain it is that 99.99% of the time I spent walking in places where people normally never go, I became attenuated to what my environment feels like with only the presence of me and my fellow pipe-swingers. The moment we felt a disturbance to that, with other humans acting and thinking in the area, our "ping meters" would go from zero to PING PING PING. It's not even based on sound, but something else on a mental level.

If you read any first-person perspectives on war experiences, you will often hear the author say how their senses alerted them to enemy action before it happened. Guys that spend time in small teams of 4-6 guys conducting recons away from any other friendly forces learn this faster than others, and the shared responsibility for unit tasks is laden more heavily on 4-6 guys than it is 42 or more.

Some good references for this subject are: On Killing, by Lt. Col (Ret.) Dave Grossman, which covers the psychological aspects of killing and mental barriers to killing, how the military deals with that practically, and the history of this issue with the US military and how it changed after WWII.

Another thing is to spend a week out in the woods or nature away from any people, and make it a hunting trip. Live off your back with a hunting buddy or family member, and take optics. When you learn that you can be present in nature without other animals aware of your presence, and get closer and closer to them, you learn a new level of confidence and how to keep that mental pinging sensation from alerting them. You're basically being sneaky without resonating the "sneaky" thought ping for all to "hear" with their 6th senses. It's like electronic emissions discipline, only at a telepathic level.

* No BS martial arts with plenty of barely-controlled sparring and increasing levels of fitness,
* A psychological understanding of your own barriers to killing and how to defeat them when appropriate,
* Spending time in nature away from people other than your small team. Those are what I would recommend for starters. This will make a great foundation for learning how to be effectively and lethally violent when necessary.

As you learn to incorporate violent training into your shoot training, never violate the 4 basics of firearms safety. This takes heightened focus as well, which only helps you mentally and practically. Start slow, but with your imagination overloading your senses with stress, rather than going through the motions when you're in the "crawl" stage of crawl-walk-run.

This is what I do with my courses, and it's quite different than any of the courses that I have attended.

LRRPF52