10 year study of stopping power based on actual shootings, eye opener to say the least.

Interesting. Glad I have my M&P15 and my shotgun, and my 9's, 45's, and my 38/357's. Don't think I'm in the market for a Judge, though.

__________________
Heavily armed old man.

The "conjecture" put in this study about the probable effectiveness of .410 pistols does not match the actual defensive shootings in Oklahoma using such weapons. Specifically, getting the assumed five buckshot hits with one shot is the rare exception. More likely, empty the gun and get one hit.
Also, most people who have come to our range with a Judge exhibit low marksmanship skills and don't seem to want to spend the money for extensive practice. The owner who uses it as a tractor gun and routinely shoots snakes with it learns to hit his target. YMMV.

__________________
Science plus Art

For some reason I can’t see the info in your post. Is it the Ellifritz one?

Attached Images

E6E22EBB-9693-45BE-B31A-BA50151850FE.jpg (26.3 KB, 309 views)

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

Is there any point in watching this or is it just like all the other studies on "stopping power" which spends several minutes rattling off statistics with no meaningful conclusion save for the fact that, shock of shocks, bullets are potentially deadly when aimed at vital portions of the anatomy, so you can pretty much defend yourself with whatever you want to?

Honestly, I don't mean to be rude, but these so-called studies have been done to death and they all ultimately conclude with what any sensible person already knew to begin with; that shot-placement is the most decisive factor in a gun fight rather than caliber, velocity, or energy foot-pounds, so sometimes it gets old watching them expecting whoever posted the video to actually include some new information rather than just copy/paste statistics which have already been thoroughly compiled and analyzed ad nauseam over the years, without even bothering to so much as include their own opinions or preferences in the video for the sake of having an alternative viewpoint or basis for comparison.
Especially when the title is effectively click bait because the subject of "what is the best handgun caliber" is never actually answered.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

very possible that some of us aren't as enlightened as you, so find it interesting.

“Stopping power” for the private citizen is making that other fella’ decide that he’s got something better to do at the moment than screw with you. Nothing more, nothing less . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Whether you find this interesting/informative or part of the caliber war sideshow, the fact is, very few minds are changed. What would be interesting would be responses saying, "After reading this, I ditched my fill-in-the-blank for a shiny, new fill-in-the-blank." Haven't seen any like that yet.

Looks like a repackaging of Marshall and Sanow publications

The micro-compact .22/.25/.32 that helps meet your primary criteria of not getting fired from work or not getting excommunicated from your church has infinite more stopping power than the high-capacity duty pistol that stayed at home.

In certain real life shots, the lack of penetration might make the difference between the wound that will incapacitate a dangerous and determined enemy or not. In certain real life shots, the lack of damage and the ability for a determined enemy to stay in the fight because he doesn't bleed fast enough can be dangerous.

That's why we judge cartridges, bullets, loadings on their objective qualities in their potential of performance. That is why terminal ballistics exists and why it is important. How well the round works when it is employed in the field. This is the most, if only, objective based scientific approach we can have towards this matter.

The raw statistics are useless, because there is not enough context. Where was the shot, how far did it penetrate, was it in line to penetrate a vital and failed to get deep enough, was it in a path where it would have never hit a vital no matter how well it performed, did it hit an artery but failed to cause good bleed out?

Without controls, there is no science or scientific analysis, the statistics are useless, or if anything dangerously inaccurate. A 44 Magnum hollow point through the large intestine is compared directly, 1:1 to a 22 fired directly through a heart, a 357 Magnum that killed a man dead with a well performing round that penetrated at deep angle to break the man's spine and incapacitate him decisively is compared 1:1 to a 32 ACP that barley wounded a man with a poorly aimed torso shot that got him to panic and give up the fight.

Making these results completely worthless at best, and dangerously misleading at worst. Poor performing rounds will look better through the lack of controls, and good performing rounds will look worse because the averages. All the while ignoring the mechanical aspects of what makes shoots fails or successes, what wins and loses individual, real world gun fights.

The poor performer that might have stopped an attack in another instance, may not work in another instance. One shot may be easier, another fight may be easier. That's why we go by the potential of the cartridge not some worthless average, or an apples to oranges comparison of gunfights and shots.

Junk science, pure garbage. Nothing but hot trash being sold as "authoritative science" when it is nothing of the sort.

Has anyone seen any study that improves on or contradicts Ellifritz ? IMHO this is still the best we have.

__________________
I like Ike.

How would you do an empirical control group study ?

__________________
I like Ike.

You can't. That's the entire point. Without it, you don't have science or a study. Just a meaningless bunch of numbers and averages that have no bearing on anything.

Besides, you missed the entire point of what was said. Mechanical understanding of the issue is more important than correlation and statistics. Understanding how bullets work, what incapacitates, why, and how, and how they all fail, is real importance.

Statistics and correlations only lead us to the real deeper understanding of the issue. They are not the final proof of anything, nor the most important part anyway.

Marshall and Sannow, and the rest like them, aren't "the best we have" they are absolute nothing with no meaning.

No meat is better than rotten meat.

Perhaps the only way to get real answers would be to set up a modern version of the Thompson / LaGarde testing originally done around the turn of last century on goats and pigs, only with better control and data collection. I doubt that would fly today with groups like PETA. Probably have a hard time getting enough human volunteers.

So, instead, we combine personal experience, what we have read or seen, personal likes and dislikes, and what passes for common sense when we pick a self defense handgun.

And the most effective choice ends up being simply having a handgun with you, and your potential attacker being so informed. Can't quote any specific statistics, but my "experience" (see above factors) after a long LE career, is that in the vast majority of cases, a potential attacker will beat feet when he becomes aware his intended victim is holding a firearm in his hand, and is willing to use it. Without a shot being fired.

The rare outlier is the thug who, for whatever reason, decides to risk death and continue the attack. That's when your willingness to use whatever you are carrying, to hit center mass, and to be willing to keep firing until the threat is down is what will save your bacon, with caliber and bullet brand becoming distant secondary considerations. JMHO.

Larry

Sorry but I can’t see your attachment. Others have said the same.

Edit: I see the attachment appears when I respond to your post. Hmm… curious…..

__________________
"Your other right........."

I still say that the best way to compile meaningful statistics on the overall effectiveness of various firearms cartridges would be to legalize the execution of registered sex offenders by firing squad.

Granted that most sex offenders range from scrawny wimps who can only overpower small children to huge misshapen blobs of flesh who immobilize their prey with their sheer girth, but at least it would provide a good baseline between two extremes, which tend to be what most folks who insist that only a select few cartridges are effective because apparently every attacker is 8ft tall, weighs over 300lbs, and wears multiple layers of leather and denim.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Not a terrible idea.
You would, however need a committee to decide which offenders would get which calibers.
I think the ACLU would object to execution via multiple pelvic hits with a .25 auto.

__________________
Because of the metric system?

I enjoyed the video, the person who did the study obviously did some research and collated a lot of data, and I believe there is a good bit of validity in the statistics. HOWEVER......

There is data missing that can skew his results, that was not included, and would complicate establishing a valid comparison. One thing not included in the caliber comparisons (or at least not discussed), is the distance each was fired from to do X amount of injury or to be a fatal shot. Certainly, shot placement is a key factor, but is not an absolute. A shot to the thigh, severing the femoral artery, is just as lethal as a chest shot hitting the aorta. Surely, the aortic wound would kill faster, but both individuals shot would bleed out before definitive care could be provided. In a similar circumstance, a shot to a meaty part of the leg, without significant vascular injury, may not stop or disable someone, but the same shot, moved just enough on the leg to hit the bone, would fracture that bone and instantly stop the person from a further advance. A .22 to the head from two feet away would kill just as quickly as a .357 Magnum from 50 yards, most likely. Shotgun wounds are hard to quantify; A close-in shot, where the shot column has not spread more than an inch or so, is akin to a high-caliber slug, damage is local to a single area. Where the shot has room to disperse, hits are more remote from each other, and can do damage in multiple areas, either more or less significant than the single wound.

What I'm getting at is, there are many more factors involved than were explored in the video, and IMO, any comparative study on the lethality, wounding ability or stopping power of a firearm is almost impossible due to the almost infinite set of variables that present themselves in a shooting incident.

for local trips instead of taking time to grab the 9mm.

The video is based on the Ellifritz study, and would be unrealistic to expect a deep dive in 10 mins, so just basic data points to consider.

No need for a committee, just use a simple system based on the nature of the crime. The more heinous the offense, the smaller the caliber/cartridge.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Well, that was interesting and unlike many previous studies, somewhat entertaining.

My take-aways from the two-way ranges:

The most important part of a gun fight is not the gun, its ammo or caliber; but your ability to use it.

__________________
Keep your powder dry.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

I can only go by my experience on the street w/my issued thirty-eight. Twice it was the old standard pressure 158 grain lead round nose & once the FBI +P lead hollow point. Suffice it to say I still carry a .38 J Frame w/complete confidence, & pray I never have to use it.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

In White Tail Deer hunting, staying focused under self induced pressure and shot placement are much more effective than the latest greatest bow, rifle or shotgun. This goes for whatever broad head, rifle cartridge or buckshot you choose as well. A miss is a miss. Taking a bad shot results in a wooded animal that can run off and possibly never be recovered or lives with a lasting injury. In a situation where someone is forced into using a firearm to defend themselves there is no substitute for their ability to make an accurate shot under extreme pressure with what ever weapon or load they use. Always make practice count.

Placement trumps caliber.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

When I was running sportsfishing boats in the 70's, one of my customers was a bear hunter from the Trinity Alps named Smitty, who used dogs to track and surround a bear, then he would dispatch them ith a .22 pistol. When I asked him how in the heck that worked, he stuck a finger right into the middle of his throat and said "when surrounded by dogs a bear will eventually stand up, which is when I shoot them right here, it shatters the top of their spine and drops them without any damage."
Smitty eventually appeared in the newspapers, busted by game agents for killing bears out of season and selling their pelt and organs to Chinese buyers, and sent to prison.
Which is when I realized why he didn't want any damage done to the bear.

I love how they ignore the fact my beloved .32 ACP beats out all the other handgun calibers, but then cherry pick info to say not to carry it!

Attached Images

	B3310F5F-5718-40F4-A6EE-52FD3B6BFED7.jpg (40.2 KB, 61 views)
	8EAE699D-580C-4929-A4B2-4FFB28602074.jpg (29.9 KB, 43 views)

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

We all knew the 25ACP is more effective than the 9mm Parabellum, right?

9mm? 357? Heck no! 32 for the win all day!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishinfool Perhaps the only way to get real answers would be to set up a modern version of the Thompson / LaGarde testing originally done around the turn of last century on goats and pigs, only with better control and data collection. I doubt that would fly today with groups like PETA. Probably have a hard time getting enough human volunteers. So, instead, we combine personal experience, what we have read or seen, personal likes and dislikes, and what passes for common sense when we pick a self defense handgun. And the most effective choice ends up being simply having a handgun with you, and your potential attacker being so informed. Can't quote any specific statistics, but my "experience" (see above factors) after a long LE career, is that in the vast majority of cases, a potential attacker will beat feet when he becomes aware his intended victim is holding a firearm in his hand, and is willing to use it. Without a shot being fired. The rare outlier is the thug who, for whatever reason, decides to risk death and continue the attack. That's when your willingness to use whatever you are carrying, to hit center mass, and to be willing to keep firing until the threat is down is what will save your bacon, with caliber and bullet brand becoming distant secondary considerations. JMHO. Larry

Several years ago I proposed a method that achieves what you suggest. . . . I was laughed and ridiculed out of town. Here is a lick-and-a-sniff ("leck und a schmeck") of my idea.

Mature, huntable whitetailed deer are 15—20 percent lighter on average than the average man. They should be easier to kill, right? Kill, in "whitetail-speak" is nearly the same as "stop".

"Why?" you might reasonably ask.

Most "stops" of human beings are attributed as psychological stops — that is, the person shot realizes he has been shot. The pain and realization cause him to cease what he is doing (runnning, shooting — whatever).

Stopping a whitetail is different. Whitetail are almost certainly more robust than than most humans because of their environment, probably compensating for the weight difference. More importantly, a whitetail does not know it has been shot. No psychological stop. Rather, the thing we want to validate is what occurs.

My concept of a test of incapacitation ability that should have high validity pertains to a long-term study of handgun hunters taking whitetail deer. There are a much larger number of handgun hunters taking whitetail than people being shot with handguns. No, I don't include war. Over a five-year period nationwide, the statistics will be absolutely valid for a caliber's ability to incapacitate deer with one shot. Ability of these data to validate ability for human incapacitation having been shot with same caliber in nearly identical location, I believe, will be high. How high will be a sure source of laughter, ridicule, and reasoned debate.

One thought consistent with my process concept that that fits right in with "There is no substitute for cubic inches," is to ask how comfortable you would be hunting whitetail deer with a 38 special or 9x19 mm versus a 357 Magnum, each with suitable ammunition? How about a 32 ACP or 380?

After watching “active self protection” for a year or more I’ve realized one should probably use a rifle or shotgun loaded with buck
A handgun is marginal at best , but beats hitting the guy with your shoe

__________________
the rules? there are no rules

How many times have we all heard "shot placement" is the most important component of marksmanship pertaining to hunting? A zillion? Never doubted it and it's what this is all about.

I served on the jury of a capital murder trial some years ago. The victim was shot with a .380 ACP. He was thirty, 225 pounds, six foot three, and in good shape. One shot; he did not make it to the hospital. The projectile traveled the length of his left lung due to an odd angle - he was shot as he was getting off a couch and leaning forward. As a consequence I certainly respect the .380 ACP.

Get a kick out of one of my hunting buds who always poo poos my "favorite" handgun caliber of .38 Special. He claims "it doesn't hit hard enough." He's a friend but none too knowledgeable about firearms. He carries a 9mm and feels superior - and I let him.

__________________
Ordnung muss sein
SWHF #789

This is going about as well as expected.

The “size matters” folks launch into speeches about how an insufficient caliber might fail to penetrate and get you killed.

And they are not wrong.

They just fail to realize they are only considering a small right hand tail of all defensive handgun uses, and in fact limit it further to actual defensive handgun shoots, where an assailant was both shot (at best 10% of all defensive hand gun uses) and didn’t end the assault as a result of a psychological stop (about 50% of all actual shoots). So they are focusing on about 1 in every 20 defensive handgun uses and are ignoring the rest.


There is also data that isn’t well explained without looking at the larger context. For example the .32 ACP probably isn’t more effective at getting one shot stops than a 9mm when all things are equal, but they often are not.

There are several confounding variables:

- the .32 ACP shooter might be a better shot. If an experienced shooter is carrying a .32 ACP he or she knows they’ll have to be very precise in bullet placement;

- police probably are not choosing the .32 ACP when raiding the local crack house and encountering motivated or drug stimulated assailants who won’t go down with one shot even with a .50 S&W.

- The greater prevalence of some calibers in law enforcement, and consequently a) greater numbers of shoots captured in the data, b) more shots fired, a c) resulting greater chance for multiple hits, and d) the higher probability of encountering a harder to put down target all have an adverse effect in the form or more multiple shot and failure to stop incidents that water down the effectiveness of common law enforcement cartridges.

- Conversely an assailant expecting a soft target but instead getting a little old lady who pulls a .32 ACP Tomcat out of her purse and puts a round in him is probably far more likely to rethink his intentions and stop or run, than a hard core gang banger in a crack house. That tends to produce a sample bias that favors the .32 ACP and makes it look a lot more effective than it is in terms of *stopping power*

But…you also can’t discount those environmental factors. That little old lady was able to carry and conceal that Tomcat easily all day, every day, while she probably would be less able and less likely to carry and conceal a CZ75 SP01, a 3” 686+, or a Model 29 in .44 Magnum. That does actually make the .32 ACP more effective in the real world because it’s there when the need arises and not in the gun safe at home. That’s a real world factor that has to be considered.

The fact that it’s not the best for that 1 in 20 occurrence doesn’t make it any less “good enough” in the other 19 out of 20 occurrences.

Big data is hard. You have to stay flexible and look at what is really going on. Limiting your cherry picked numbers to just one facet disconnected from the larger context and qualifiers can and will lead you to misleading conclusions.

It is hard for some people to drop their intuitive feelings and discard incorrect old lore. Yes you, Mr. .45 Cal.
Terminal ballistics studies are showing that velocity over 2,200 fps causes serious damage even with small projectiles. With less velocity shot placement and adequate penetration quickly become paramount.
Pistol calibers are surprisingly similar in lethality.
This understanding of terminal ballistics is a big part of the trend away from heavy revolvers to 10mm pistols in big bear country.
The wild card is the motivation, mental state, adrenalin, drug use, etc. of the target.

It's hard to draw concrete conclusions from real-world shootings. There are far too many variables, which is why we have ballistic gel tests.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

Nowadays, I'd find it hard to justify purchasing a .22/.25/.32 for a carry gun when there are .380's available in the same size, and 9mm's not much bigger.

Now if all you have is a .22/.25/.32, and you can't afford anything else, that's a different matter...

My personal take away was .380 should be the minimal caliber for EDC. I carry a LCP Anniversary model in a Alabama holster with a 7 round mag more than any other handgun, preferring the longer pull of that model trigger. Loaded with Underwood XTP's, and with a spare 7 round mag in off pocket, I do not feel inadequately armed for general tooling about in my small community.
With the advancement in .380 ammo, and the increasing trend to smaller/higher capacity handguns, there will be more such models appearing regularly. As more and more folks come to EDC, most are unprepared for dealing with the weight of the larger caliber handguns, and few LGS take the time or have the holster/belt inventory to explain how to match the handgun to the carry method.

I am in the camp with Naphtali. I have hunted whitetail deer for quite a few years, and have seen deer with killing shots take off running, some never found. My preference these days is a neck shot, which puts them down "right there." The eating is better then too.

If you are facing a person high on some kind of drug and intent on doing you harm, aim small, miss small. If someone is trying to rob you, just letting them know you are ready to end their life will likely suffice.

We all want to know this type of information, and Greg Ellifritz did an outstanding job with the data he was able to collect. I read this study when it was first published and recall some of his observations included that the data didn't distinguish between bullet configurations, i.e. hollow point, FMJ, and that in its own right might have skewered the results to an unknown degree. Such as he suspected that the 9mm's stopping statistics might have been higher if the data had allowed to see the results of shootings with modern defensive ammo. I regularly follow Elligritz' blogging; his Weekend Knowledge Dumps and a cup of coffee are what get me going every Friday morning.

Here's the Catch- 22 :

If it's not repeatable , it's not Scientific

Ignoring Real World results ( with meaningful sample size ) is foolish .

No matter what methodology , or what conclusions , a majority of readers will strongly disagree . For different & conflicting reasons , but cumulatively disagree .

Most of the legitimate criticisms of Ellifritz's study have been mentioned . There is one thing I do want to commend him for , that usually isn't given enough consideration .

Giving attention to the rate of Failures equally with incapacitions and fatalities .

Excuse the seperate posting , but kinda separate topics :

Distance really isn't a factor with handguns . Few handgun fights take place at 50 yds plus , if not 100 plus where velocity has dropped enough to be meaningful .

Other than for a while about 2 years ago there was a fad with the gangbangers in Baltimore that once the Shootee was down on the ground , they would run up , and dump the remaining rounds in the head from arm's length .


From the various information that I personally take as relevant , the results with .32acp and .380acp are very close , with the .32 having other indirectly favorable aspects . Take this you to what extent I'm praising .32acp , and how much is my unabashed dislike of .380 .

Both are significantly less than even subcompact 9mm . Simultaneously , both are far superior to either .25acp or .22lr ( from compact handgun ) .

**********************

And Yes ! Once upon a decade , I did change my opinions and practices due to stopping power studies .

I really enjoyed reading their stuff back in the day...

I did too. I know there were shortcomings with some of their "data" but it was still very informative.

Wow, no one has mentioned the infamous “ LEO” study/tests in the 70’s…

Or the alleged “Strasbourg Goat Study”.

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

Look closely, it uses bad methodology. Bad methodology or design leads to an inaccurate and invalid study and conclusion.

The person who wrote it, Gregg Ellifritz is an amazing resource on defensive issues. He is a great teacher with a strong background in Law enforcement and training, and has written some of the best things that I have read on a wide variety of topics. His background, skill, and teaching ability cannot be questioned. I can appreciate the amount of time and effort he put into this. However, in the end I am afraid that I don't agree with his conclusion.

By his own description, the author of the study tried to record every shooting he could find. By definition this includes situations where an armed person shot an unarmed person, or shot someone who was not interested in fighting him in the first place, or not very serious about posing a threat. All of those fall into the heading of "every shooting he could find."

The author of the report "scoured the newspapers, magazines, and Internet for any reliable accounts of what happened to the human body when it was shot."

This is a huge problem because you often don't get accurate information about the gun or caliber used, number of shots fired or hit, where they hit, circumstances of the shooting, etc. In most cases you don't have accurate information to conclude when the person being shot stops. So you absolutely cannot include these accounts in any statistical study.

Even if the information was accurate, in most cases all you know is how many rounds were fired--not if the person shot was stopped.

Further, even if the data were accurate, the premise of this study is flawed in the way it compares dissimilar shootings.

Shooting someone who isn't a serious attacker, who may not be armed, and is afraid of you isn't the same as shooting an of objective driven violent criminal attacker.

If you look at this author's logic, if two drunks at a bar get into a pushing match and one pulls out a .25 auto and shoots the other once and the man who was shot backs off, it counts as a one shot stop.

But if a police officer draws his 9mm loaded with Federal HST JHPs and as fires multiple quick shots at an attacker in the manner in which he was likely trained--it counts as a one-shot failure, or a situation where multiple shots were required to stop someone.

I submit, would you rather rely on a .25 auto for self defense or the 9mm loaded with Federal HSTs?

I think it is admirable what the person who wrote this study tried to do, but I am afraid the methodology wasn't quite there. I would not try to extrapolate any of his results on what would work for me if confronted by a violent criminal.

Good points. In addition, Ellifritz says that he carries a Glock 19 90% of the time while off-duty.

Another point is that more than 1/2 of the shootings involving 9mm were FMJs. He didn't explain why the high prevalence of FMJs, when JHPs are more effective, but maybe this explains at least part: another study he did was of criminals' use of handguns, and 80% used FMJs when shooting 9mm.

citation:
Criminals and the Guns They Carry | Active Response Training


However, he agreed that the results would have favored 9mm more had more JHPs been included. I wonder why he didn't filtered the results to show the effects of just 9mm JHPs?

The high percentage of 9mm FMJ is due to cost.

I work at a gun store Sunday mornings and a majority of customers who buy a decent 9mm pistol for protection won’t spend the extra ~$30 on a box of HP ammo, but they’ll buy a box or two of FMJ.

My office is in my LGS. According to the customers I’ve met that may or may not solemnly swear that they are up to no good, FMJ is popular in the streets because it’s cheap, feeds all the time, and achieves the intended goal. They use other words, of course . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .