Popularity versus utility in concealable EDC?

We could argue the effectiveness of the 32 or any other caliber for that matter. It the end it’s up to the individual.

As for one shot stops, I have yet to see accurate, reliable, truthful, and repeatable methods of gathering information.

Marshall and Sanow’s work proved this as their work was proven to be greatly flawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: edl
One Shot Stop

The theory behind that research is logically valid, if the methodology was flawed.

If the "caliber wars" have any merit at all, something ought to show somehow in some kind of data somewhere. If it does NOT show in the data, which is what everyone seems to be saying, then quit advocating for one caliber over another at all.

If the 45ACP is a better man-stopper than a 9mm it ought to show in the data. Not in one shooting or a dozen, but over time with enough data something ought to show. Gunfights are complex messy affairs. But if so complex and so messy that there is no way to see how any caliber is better than any other, then on what must we focus instead?

Shot placement?
Shot placement?
How do you get the bad guy to hold still so that your shot goes just where you want it to? It is a mere happenstance if your bullet slices an artery or misses by a millimeter. Those who say "shot placement" do not seem to realize how much luck is involved. If shot placement is THE decisive factor in these fights, then do you mean LUCK is the decisive factor?

I really enjoyed the thread, so thanks everyone.
Kind Regards All
BrianD
 
I've never been involved in a gunfight. Its likely that I never will, and that is fine with me. Despite practice, and some training, I wonder how well I would do in a real life situation with my shot placement? Those who think that they will stay cool and collected and focus on their skill in accurate shooting are likely fooling themselves. So knowing that I might be lucky just to hit the attacked ANYWHERE on his body makes me more comfotable with a 38+p or a 9mm+ or a 45acp than a 22, 32, or even 380.

In another area, I do think that popularity certainly affects the choice of the gun that is carried by many people. Years ago the rage was S&W Shield. Then a lot of folks jumped on the Sig 365 bandwagon. And no doubt there will be some new gun at some point capturing a lot of attention and a boatload of sales. FWIW, my EDC is a Ruger LC9s that I have confidence in, is easy to carry, and with 7+1 enough rounds to make me feel comfortable.
 
If the "caliber wars" have any merit at all, something ought to show somehow in some kind of data somewhere. If it does NOT show in the data, which is what everyone seems to be saying, then quit advocating for one caliber over another at all.

. . .

Shot placement?
Shot placement?
How do you get the bad guy to hold still so that your shot goes just where you want it to? It is a mere happenstance if your bullet slices an artery or misses by a millimeter. Those who say "shot placement" do not seem to realize how much luck is involved. If shot placement is THE decisive factor in these fights, then you mean LUCK is the decisive factor?
Is luck how one gets to Carnegie Hall?

Well, it's part of it, but mastery of your instrument and your artistry (as well as "who you know" - but that's not part of our equation) are what one controls, so it's what one focuses on.

When we look at "effectiveness," we're comparing results, and we're looking for factors that appear consistently. My experience has shown that the results of handgun caliber effectiveness corrolate positively with two things: shot placement (did the bullet strike where it would hit a vital structure that requires cessation of aggressive action by the target?) and adequate penetration (was bullet actually impacting/damaging those vitals). Other things (expansion, caliber, the phase of the moon, the psychological reaction of the target, who's president, the price of tea in China . . . and yes, luck) are those angels dancing on the head of a pin.

I've never worked on a case in which a person struck by a handgun bullet in the heart/aorta or brain/spinal cord continued aggressive action. Didn't matter whether it was a .22 or a .45, whether it was a wadcutter or a hollowpoint. Getting to hit those structures might have taken some luck, but it also might have reflected mastery of the weapon involved.

I've worked on several cases in which stops were effected by rounds hitting other than in those area. The one common factor there appears to be luck.

I can control my level of mastery with a given weapon, but luck is trickier. Practice/pray/hope however you want - your life/your call.
 
I've never been involved in a gunfight. Its likely that I never will, and that is fine with me. Despite practice, and some training, I wonder how well I would do in a real life situation with my shot placement? Those who think that they will stay cool and collected and focus on their skill in accurate shooting are likely fooling themselves. So knowing that I might be lucky just to hit the attacked ANYWHERE on his body makes me more comfotable with a 38+p or a 9mm+ or a 45acp than a 22, 32, or even 380.

In another area, I do think that popularity certainly affects the choice of the gun that is carried by many people. Years ago the rage was S&W Shield. Then a lot of folks jumped on the Sig 365 bandwagon. And no doubt there will be some new gun at some point capturing a lot of attention and a boatload of sales. FWIW, my EDC is a Ruger LC9s that I have confidence in, is easy to carry, and with 7+1 enough rounds to make me feel comfortable.

You're right to pick a gun that fits you and that you operate and shoot well, and that is adequately powerful enough to "get to the good stuff" should you need to use it. And you're certainly right to practice and get training - and to be concerned about what happens if you should miss.

Too many people appear to think they'll rise to the occasion and not default to their level of training (which is why we all incorporate training under stress, right? ;) ), in the same way some people appear to think that having a deadly weapon on their person protects them in some talismanic way.

And that doesn't even begin to get into the legal consequences attached to each bullet you launch. I can assure you that it makes sense to realize there's no certainty there, either.

Good we're all talking and thinking about this - it underscores what a dreadful thing it is to be involved in the use of deadly force. God forbid it ever enters our lives.
 
Several years ago I did a lot of penetration tests with FMJ handgun rounds in landscape timbers, the yellow pine construction lumber sold at home improvement stores and cedar mail box posts. Also some in water soaked tightly bound newspapers. In similar sized guns like 1934 and 1935 Berettas, S&B .32 ACP achieved higher velocity than .380 ACP and penetrated deeper if that matters to anyone. Something most might not realize is that all RN FMJ bullets yaw to some extent when passing through soft material like the wet newsprint. This was confirmed by backing the news print with 2x12s. The result is an oblong hole that is larger than bullet dia and surely is the result of those "little" bullets being more effect than people assume.
 
There is always controversy in methodology when studies using field data are involved.

The critics like to nit pick the details and largely miss the point that the goal with a big data study is to find the general performance factors that tend to come out in the wash after all of the uncontrollable variables more or less concrete themselves out.

There can however still be some cartridges with small Ns that have to be considered with an eye to any limits that might come from the small numbers.


There is also a difference between rapid incapacitation, and lethality. I used to know a trauma surgeon from a couple mutual cases. With about 1500 cases under his knife, he felt strongly that the most lethal handgun round was the .230 gr RN .45 ACP. However, there’s some experiential bias and some survivorship bias in his observation. As a thoracic surgeon who originally came from South Africa, he had a great deal of experience with people shot with FMJ rounds, and he found .45 ACP was more likely to kill on a shot for shot basis than 9mm or 7.62x25.

In the US, where gun shot victims were often shot with hollow points, the victims had to survive long enough to reach his OR. The fact that he saw fewer hollow point victims, and regarded the .45 ACP FMJ as the most lethal speaks to the potential that people shot multiple times with hollow points didn’t live long enough to make it to his OR.

He also commented that the biggest predictor of lethality was number of wound tracts. The more wound tracts, the more organs and systems, compromised and the less likely the damage could be repaired before the victim expired. His view as it didn’t matter whether that would track was made with a .22 or a .45.

——

When I look at the Ellifritz data or the Marshall answer Sanow data, one of the things I note is the percentage that did not stop. That percentage doesn’t get materially smaller with larger or more powerful handgun rounds. Those are the assailants where you have to shoot until they no longer exhibit a threat, even if it’s to slide lock.

I also note that even the worst of the one shot stop percentages are usually over 50 percent. That strongly suggests that about half the assailants who are shot are going to stop when shot as they don’t wand to get shot anymore. In that half, handgun cartridge doesn’t matter.

Handgun cartridge also doesn’t matter in the far larger number of handgun self defense uses where the assailant flees before being hit, or flees before the hand gun is even fired, or in some cases before the draw is even complete. Knowing they are about to get shot is enough to end the assault. In those cases the cartridge they are about to get shot with doesn’t matter.

——-

The folks who denigrate the field report data and related studies also seem to forget that the FBIs ballistic gelatin standards were in fact based on the performance in ballistic gelatin of rounds that demonstrated good results in the field.

Bullets are not magically effective because they expand at least 1.5 times their original data and penetrate 12-18”. Those performance metrics were adopted because rounds that were effective in the field for the most part and on average also demonstrated that performance in ballistic gelatin.

In that regard the .32 ACP can meet those standards with a 60 gr XTP at 1000-1050 fps, as can the 90 gr XTP in .380 ACP at the same velocities.

But there’s also a great deal of value in number of wound tracks and each wound track creates another opportunity for the cardio vascular or CNS hit needed to get rapid incapacitation.

In that regard, a .32 ACP usually offers another round in the magazine in the same model pistol compared to .380 ACP, and it’s always lighter recoiling, with the ability for much faster accurate follow up shots.

I regard the two as equal as the extra wound track and ability to deliver rounds accurately on target faster erases any minor advantage the .380 has in wound track diameter.

It was a mainstay in Europe as a law enforcement caliber for over 50 years, and it obviously worked well enough for the job.
 
Two other things people do not take into consideration, is the shooters ability to put hits on target and second, the willingness to put hits on target. The "Fight or Flight Response".
 
T
When I look at the Ellifritz data or the Marshall answer Sanow data, one of the things I note is the percentage that did not stop.

You are not going to be able to note the percentage that did not stop from Marshall and Sanow because they deliberately excluded situations where one shot was not enough and additional shots had to be fired.

They have been debunked since the mid to late 1990s. Many departments where they claimed they got their shooting date from came forward and said that either Marshall and Sanow grossly misrepresented the information they provided, or that shootings that Marshall and Sanow attributed to their department never took place.

Their methodology as well as Ellifritz are so flawed that you cannot draw anything useful useful from them.
 
Last edited:
There is always controversy in methodology when studies using field data are involved.

The critics like to nit pick the details and largely miss the point that the goal with a big data study is to find the general performance factors that tend to come out in the wash after all of the uncontrollable variables more or less concrete themselves out.

There can however still be some cartridges with small Ns that have to be considered with an eye to any limits that might come from the small numbers.


There is also a difference between rapid incapacitation, and lethality. I used to know a trauma surgeon from a couple mutual cases. With about 1500 cases under his knife, he felt strongly that the most lethal handgun round was the .230 gr RN .45 ACP. However, there’s some experiential bias and some survivorship bias in his observation. As a thoracic surgeon who originally came from South Africa, he had a great deal of experience with people shot with FMJ rounds, and he found .45 ACP was more likely to kill on a shot for shot basis than 9mm or 7.62x25.

In the US, where gun shot victims were often shot with hollow points, the victims had to survive long enough to reach his OR. The fact that he saw fewer hollow point victims, and regarded the .45 ACP FMJ as the most lethal speaks to the potential that people shot multiple times with hollow points didn’t live long enough to make it to his OR.

He also commented that the biggest predictor of lethality was number of wound tracts. The more wound tracts, the more organs and systems, compromised and the less likely the damage could be repaired before the victim expired. His view as it didn’t matter whether that would track was made with a .22 or a .45.

——

When I look at the Ellifritz data or the Marshall answer Sanow data, one of the things I note is the percentage that did not stop. That percentage doesn’t get materially smaller with larger or more powerful handgun rounds. Those are the assailants where you have to shoot until they no longer exhibit a threat, even if it’s to slide lock.

I also note that even the worst of the one shot stop percentages are usually over 50 percent. That strongly suggests that about half the assailants who are shot are going to stop when shot as they don’t wand to get shot anymore. In that half, handgun cartridge doesn’t matter.

Handgun cartridge also doesn’t matter in the far larger number of handgun self defense uses where the assailant flees before being hit, or flees before the hand gun is even fired, or in some cases before the draw is even complete. Knowing they are about to get shot is enough to end the assault. In those cases the cartridge they are about to get shot with doesn’t matter.

——-

The folks who denigrate the field report data and related studies also seem to forget that the FBIs ballistic gelatin standards were in fact based on the performance in ballistic gelatin of rounds that demonstrated good results in the field.

Bullets are not magically effective because they expand at least 1.5 times their original data and penetrate 12-18”. Those performance metrics were adopted because rounds that were effective in the field for the most part and on average also demonstrated that performance in ballistic gelatin.

In that regard the .32 ACP can meet those standards with a 60 gr XTP at 1000-1050 fps, as can the 90 gr XTP in .380 ACP at the same velocities.

But there’s also a great deal of value in number of wound tracks and each wound track creates another opportunity for the cardio vascular or CNS hit needed to get rapid incapacitation.

In that regard, a .32 ACP usually offers another round in the magazine in the same model pistol compared to .380 ACP, and it’s always lighter recoiling, with the ability for much faster accurate follow up shots.

I regard the two as equal as the extra wound track and ability to deliver rounds accurately on target faster erases any minor advantage the .380 has in wound track diameter.

It was a mainstay in Europe as a law enforcement caliber for over 50 years, and it obviously worked well enough for the job.


Hence my post above about 12 gauge and buckshot............
 
Since we've moved on to actual studies.....I'm going to bring up a study that dovetails nicely into Erich's points: the widely disparaged "computer man" study or NIJ report 100-83 on Incapacitation. (101-83 is the methodology and boring, but educational)

First off, the study had two flaws: the worst one being the belief/theory that tissue in the temporary wound cavity was destroyed. The other-and almost as bad- was that it provided "effectiveness" ranking of all the commercially available handgun ammunition. The result was that very few people actually read the study, they just looked at the rankings and then the pro/con screaming began. That's very unfortunate.

The first thing determined, before the actual testing began, was that our point of aim training is/was deeply flawed. As Erich notes, ya gotta hit the important stuff. This is an open forum and there's no control on who reads this, so I'm not going further. We'll just say that full value areas of most widely available targets are entirely too generous. Accuracy also matters, so you hit the important stuff you're aiming at.

The second point was that adequate penetration to reach vital organs was necessary. Velocity and bullet construction figure in here. More velocity is more better.

For the hardware junkies: the lead hollow point was found to be most effective, followed by the JHP. JHP bullet design has come a long, long way since then.

Finally one caution on depending upon ballistic test results. The test medium is uniform, the bodies of living creatures are not. All the test results I've ever read note that the results aren't predictive of real world performance.
 
Last edited:
Gawd I do so love these threads. Even sigp220.45 weighed in! Between he and Eric's posts the issue has pretty much been resolved. Common sense people, shoot with something you can hit with (shot placement) and the rest will take care of itself. Most lethal calibre I have seen in my 32 years of pouring over autopsy reports in my quixotic quest to do the right thing is the lowly .22 based on the amount of times it pops up in the final report. It's cheap easy to get and like sigp220.45 most people do NOT want to be shot with one.
 
All I'm trying to do with my EDC is to make that other fella' quickly decide that he's got something better to do at the moment than direct his anger at me. As others have pointed out, especially my esteemed federal retiree colleague, there are many ways to accomplish that without a chronometer, slide rule, and ballistic gel . . .
 
Handguns are tricky in the way that practically any of them will suffice in a defensive role with proper shot placement and the right bullet construction.

Even .22LR or .25 ACP is capable of delivering an incapacitating or otherwise lethal wound out of a handgun, albeit if only with round-nosed, non-expanding bullets.

I think what made the .32 ACP less popular is the fact that it's intermediate performance makes it somewhat risky to use in the modern era due to the fact that JHPs consistently under-penetrate, yet FMJ consistently over-penetrates, ergo you have to use FMJ for it to be effective, yet in so doing you run the risk of causing collateral damage.

.380 ACP edges out .32 ACP because there are a selection of JHPs which will consistently expand yet penetrate deeply.

Ultimately, I think that folks are best served carrying whatever it is that they are the most confident with based on their own individual performance with it in their own individual hands.
Many folks have invested an excessive amount of time, effort, and thought in persuit of an illusive ideal, one-size-fits-all solution to self-defense, despite the fact that it's evidently a fundamentally flawed concept.
After all, if no two people are alike, then how can a single solution be ideal for everyone? So if you're seeking a firearm for personal protection, then why worry about what works best for everyone, and why not focus on seeking what works best for you personally?
 
Last edited:
How does sepsis come into play in a self-defense discussion? Is the goal to kill (eventually) or to stop? Maybe I don't understand the original post.
 
Since we've moved on to actual studies.....I'm going to bring up a study that dovetails nicely into Erich's points: the widely disparaged "computer man" study or NIJ report 100-83 on Incapacitation. (101-83 is the methodology and boring, but educational)

First off, the study had two flaws: the worst one being the belief/theory that tissue in the temporary wound cavity was destroyed. The other-and almost as bad- was that it provided "effectiveness" ranking of all the commercially available handgun ammunition. ...

Isn't this the study that led to the DOJ's "Relative Incapacitance Index?"

High velocity fast expanding bullets maximizing the temporary wound cavity, even at the expense of penetration, that allegedly blamed in the debacle of the "Miami Shootout."

Winchester's engineers built the bullet they said they wanted, the 115 grain Silvertip."
 
While I think you're dead-on correct in saying that each individual should choose what makes best sense for his circumstances, I never once saw a real world case in which the .380 hollowpoints used demonstrated reliable penetration to the targeted vital structures.

.380 ACP edges out .32 ACP because there are a selection of JHPs which will consistently expand yet penetrate deeply.

There are some new ones now, so . . . who knows? But after seeing so many failures (and after consulting with Martin Fackler (PBUH) on wound channels/calibers/hollow points on a case where it was relevant, my advice has been to not put "brakes" on a very light, slow bullet - whether it be .32, .380 or 9Mak. (FWIW, one of the reasons I insist on HPs is to protect against overpenetration into that school bus full of nuns: I've only seen a single overpenetration with .380 ball, and that was a round that hit a guy in the calf.)

As you say, though, to each his own! :)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top