View Single Post
Old July 21, 2013, 07:04 PM   #25
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by idek
...In the Ellifritz link I posted, his results showed 61% one-shot incapacitation with .22lr, 72% with .32 caliber cartridges, 62% with .380 ACP.

Meanwhile, 9mm Luger and .45 ACP results show 47% and 51% one-shot incapacitation respectively.

According to this particular study, even the "larger holes are better than smaller holes" statement would go out the window.

Something seems wrong when .32 ACP/.32 Long looks like the clear winner in a comparison of handgun cartridges. If that means I'm "bashing" Ellifrizt's work, then I guess I'm bashing it.
What it means is that you didn't understand Ellifitz's analysis of the data.

First, look at the article and the chart there labeled "Failure to incapacitate."

Then have another look at post 9 where I quote Ellifritz:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Ellifritz

...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....
Then also look at post 9 where I quote the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick, page 8:
Quote:
...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.

The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....
In other words, much, or even most, of the time a person when shot will choose to stop what he's doing for psychological reasons. He is not actually incapacitated, but rather he decides to stop because it hurts, or he's afraid, or he's convinced himself that once he's been shot he's incapable of continuing, etc. In such cases, what he's been shot with really doesn't matter. It's enough that he's been shot and he knows it. His mind then tells him not to continue, or his mind tells him he can't continue. His mind decides not to continue, even though he may in fact be physiologically capable of continuing.

But what if the assailant's mind doesn't know or care that he's been shot? That certainly seems to happen at times. And in such cases, the assailant isn't going to stop unless/until his body is sufficiently damaged in such a way that he is forced to stop. So he might be forced to stop because his brain or spine is physically damaged. He might he might be forced to stop because major bones/skeletal structures are smashed to the point that he has lost mobility. He might be forced to stop because he has lost so much blood that the oxygen level in his brain has fallen to the extent that it can no longer function.

The thing is that if you need to shoot someone in self defense you can't know ahead of time whether he will stop because of psychological factors or you will need to damage him enough to make him physiologically incapable to be a continued threat. Bullets making more and larger holes deep enough in the right places are more likely to produce a sufficient physiological response if the assailant is not willing to just stop because he's been shot.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04702 seconds with 7 queries