Is there any credible data...

[MandolinMan]

Hello,

I was wondering if there was any credible data on the effectiveness of various handgun calibers in real world scenarios. I'm aware of statistics compiled in the 1980's that I understand have since been found inaccurate. Even if it were granted that they were accurate, much has changed since then as far as bullet technology is concerned.

My reason for asking is a conversation that I had with an older gentleman who was adamant that a certain caliber many times more effective that another, citing data from some old police study.

I DO NOT want personal conjecture or anecdotes about your great uncles cousins nephew who is a self proclaimed youtube expert on the subject.

Thanks.

[reynolds357]

The FBI maintains stats. Obviously the 9 is doing pretty well because they switched back to it.

[MarkCO]

There is some. I spent a lot of time on this issue professionally as well and when it comes right down to it, handgun calibers are a compromise between a knife and a long gun. All will stop a threat when put in the right spot. But the spots are bigger with more power, so the skill of placing the lethal penetration has to be more precise with a smaller spot (less power). I talked with Marshall on a few occasions, and even he acknowledges that the work he did with Sanow was not comprehensive, just a shot at getting the ball rolling. The Marshall and Sanow One Shot Stop "theory" was (is) still held in high regard by many, even though, as you said, there were inaccuracies. But as a group, handgun calibers are nowhere near as effective as high powered rifles. There are some other studies, but not as general as the one I link below, which I believe answers the questions better than some of the medical research reports which, after wading through jargon, come to similar conclusions, but lack the expertise of an accomplished shooter and thus lack some of the surrounding observations.

This is the most recent, publically available, and credible work I have reviewed: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

But, read the whole thing. Ellifritz articulates some of the issues incumbent in his review of the data. Most important to me, is the ball ammo vs. JHP vs. newer technology JHPs. I have seen some data that suggests ball handgun ammo ranges from 20-25% "effective" while JHP handgun ammo ranges from 35-50% "effective" with center torso hits with one round. There is little difference in the numbers from 32 to 45 caliber handgun slugs. But the medical folks have a different perception of effective than LE or a citizen being attacked would have.

Hope this helped some.

[JoeSixpack]

I think there was also a book that looked at shootings called "stopping power"

Honestly I dont' remember the results given that there are so many defensive rounds on the market these days, every shooting is different (placement, mindset, clothing and body)
Im not sure you could ever get beyond generalizations.

Most of what I have read seems to suggest minimal difference between the big 3, 9mm, .40, and .45acp.

Seems like .357 was the gold standard for which all else was judge though.

Honestly I left behind the caliber war debate long long LONG ago.. I already made up my mind.

[CDR_Glock]

Originally Posted by MarkCO

There is some. I spent a lot of time on this issue professionally as well and when it comes right down to it, handgun calibers are a compromise between a knife and a long gun. All will stop a threat when put in the right spot. But the spots are bigger with more power, so the skill of placing the lethal penetration has to be more precise with a smaller spot (less power). I talked with Marshall on a few occasions, and even he acknowledges that the work he did with Sanow was not comprehensive, just a shot at getting the ball rolling. The Marshall and Sanow One Shot Stop "theory" was (is) still held in high regard by many, even though, as you said, there were inaccuracies. But as a group, handgun calibers are nowhere near as effective as high powered rifles. There are some other studies, but not as general as the one I link below, which I believe answers the questions better than some of the medical research reports which, after wading through jargon, come to similar conclusions, but lack the expertise of an accomplished shooter and thus lack some of the surrounding observations.

This is the most recent, publically available, and credible work I have reviewed: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

But, read the whole thing. Ellifritz articulates some of the issues incumbent in his review of the data. Most important to me, is the ball ammo vs. JHP vs. newer technology JHPs. I have seen some data that suggests ball handgun ammo ranges from 20-25% "effective" while JHP handgun ammo ranges from 35-50% "effective" with center torso hits with one round. There is little difference in the numbers from 32 to 45 caliber handgun slugs. But the medical folks have a different perception of effective than LE or a citizen being attacked would have.

Hope this helped some.

Thanks for the link.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[tipoc]

The Ellifritz "study" isn't actually a study. He studied no raw data. He does not state the sources of the data on which he bases his opinions. It's the fellas opinion.

tipoc

[tipoc]

Here is some info on the FBIs Ammunition Protocol for testing ammo. Those that pass are useful defense rounds.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/FBI%20Am...0Protocol.html

An older opinion piece on the subject.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/art...-your-options/

You can also go by here to see Evan Marshall's site.

http://www.stoppingpower.net/

There is a lot to read on the subject.

tipoc

[MarkCO]

So according to you tipoc, unless the guy pulled the trigger, raw data can not exist? He participated in autopsies, interviewed participants and read the police reports...that is raw data. He DOES state where it came from, but you have to actually read his article to see that I guess.

[hdwhit]

The problem with all such analyses is that there is no generally accepted definition for the term "effectiveness".

If I am approached on the street by a person who starts to mug me and when I draw my gun, the person runs away, was the gun "effective"? Is the gun only "effective" if the target is hit? Or does the target have to be "incapacitated"? And if so, how do we define "incapacitate" and how quickly must it ensue after the gun is fired to be counted?

Until a definition is proposed and widely adopted, those are rhetorical questions because until there's a definition nobody even knows if the currently collected data sets have enough elements to be meaningful.

I know this not what people want to hear; they want a number they can use to prove to themselves they are carrying "the best" gun, but the reality is that until we know how to measure effectiveness on a consistent, comparable and repeatable way (repeatable as in repeatable analysis of the data, not repeated shootings), there is no answer to the question of effectiveness.

[tipoc]

MarkCo,

I've read the article several times over the years. It's his opinion and worth reading. I did not say, as you are aware, that only the person who pulled the trigger has the raw data. It's better for you to disagree with my actual opinion than make one up for me and then disagree with that.

Greg Ellifritz did some studying and spoke to folks and wrote a piece reflecting on what he'd learned. That's an article. Like the one I linked to from American Handgunner and like many others. A study is something different.

I disagree with you on the value of what he's written is all. It's a good read and a part of a long running discussion though.

tipoc

[44 AMP]

I was wondering if there was any credible data on the effectiveness of various handgun calibers in real world scenarios.

This is a subject that generates a lot of discussion, debate, pontificating, and the odd duel or two...

The key factors in the debate usually are how people define "credible" and "effective". There are many others, but these two generally lead the rest.

All will stop a threat when put in the right spot. But the spots are bigger with more power, so the skill of placing the lethal penetration has to be more precise with a smaller spot (less power).

I won't disagree with this at all, BUT, the inclusion of "lethal penetration" as a component channels the discussion into a certain direction, one which is not all inclusive.

What is "effectiveness"? And how do you measure it? Death of the attacker? physical incapacitation (short of death)? does it count if the attacker gets a flesh wound and gives up the attack as a bad idea?

How about when the attacker runs away at the sight (or sound) of a gun?? No physical harm to either party, but the attack WAS stopped. Does this count, and if so, where??

Medical reports from the morgue or the ER do not tell the whole story. They cannot. All they can do is accurately describe where the holes are, where they went, and the condition of the tissue at the time the Doc saw it.

Police reports may tell you what happened during the shooting, but the accuracy of the reports varies widely, depending on the information available to the officer writing the report, and the fact that by necessity, such reports are written after the action ends. sometimes well after.

I've read a lot of things about this over the last half century (and had a little bit of first hand real world observation as well), and the only consistent things
I've found is that when someone is shot, with any and everything from a .22 to a 12ga, sometimes it works, and sometimes, it doesn't.

Yes, studies identify general trends, and that can be useful. But remember that general trends are what usually happens, and usually only means more often than not. And the odds of any shooting you are involved being the general trend, or the exception seem to me to be 50/50.

Enjoy the discussion, but keep in mind that for every success of a given load/caliber there are also failures. And that there is a difference between data and conclusions.

[T. O'Heir]

There is no such thing as "stopping power". No cartridge will give you a 100% guaranteed 'One Shot Stop'. Physics doesn't allow it.
In any case, most of the mentioned "stats" and "data" are anecdotal and/or second or third hand, at best. Records of who shot who with what and how it worked are not kept. Even by the FBI. Whose protocols mean nothing.
Their failures in the Miami Shootout of 1986 were the result of poor training. And trying to find excuse for the lack of skill of the participants. Most of who very likely never fired their issue firearms except for qualifying shoots.
Evan Marshall's site and opinions have been discussed here before too.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=221819

[cslinger]

I think what most folks want to know as effectiveness is some kind of numerical measurement of lethality of a given round (which I simply don't think is possible) for example 9mm +p eviserator will penetrate this far and stops a target in x time blah blah.

I think the fallacy of that is two fold.

First you can design tests to give you empirical data (ballistic gell, yet old meat target, drywall tests etc.) but those will only give you an indicator of how said round works on those items and in many cases the real world with real people adds innumerable variables. Short of taking inmates and using them as test subjects (which I am NOT advocating) the best you can do is historical data which can be cloudy as far as details or said scientific tests above. Historical data also favors older tech as newer tech hasn't been used as long. 9BPLE +P+ is far from new age high tech and has a pretty solid history of stopping threats.

Second I, and I would argue 99% of any moral human being, doesn't care how lethal the round is, in so much as did it stop the jacktard attacking me from doing what they are doing. Did they stop shooting, run away, fall down etc. with that thought I would argue in many cases a burst of .22 would be very effective.

Handgun rounds are all basically tiny little pieces of metal moving moderately fast. You are either going to have a psychological stop (ohh crap I've been shot), a structural stop (oh crap it's hard to fight without a hip), a hydrologics stop (oh crap I'm getting sleepy what's all this red stuff leaking out) or an electrical stop (CNS hit fights over). Any of those combined with the holy crap that crazy dude is shooting and MIGHT hit me I am heading for the hills would amount to an effective stop.

Then there are those rare cases that NOTHING but a lethal shot/CNS hit will end the fight and caliber is not likely to matter much there either since said attacker is so determined or drugged to allow them to continue fighting even if walking dead.

All that is to say. Have a gun, any gun, know how to use it and keep squeezing till they stop wheezing so to speak.(the threat goes away). If you are relying on a single round to stop your target (physically/immediately) you are likely in for a surprise as folks have been filled with rifle rounds and fought on. 12 gauge seems to do well because of the multiple hits and wound tracks.

Ok maybe something .577 tyrannosaur or possible .50 BMG might give me more confidence but I'm still shooting more then once if my initial strategy of screaming like a little girl and running away doesn't work. It's a tactical scream designed to disorient. That's my story.

[MarkCO]

44 AMP and cslinger both present valid points that underscore why this topic is so difficult. Another has to do with the "protection" of some of the data for fear of misuse. I have been to 2 test facilities, both took all methods of recording from me and made me sign NDAs regarding what I saw and learned. That data is there, but few will ever see it outside of those companies and agencies who actually do the tests.

[reynolds357]

The FBI switched to 9mm and I guarantee you that ammo cost was NOT the reason. I was and still am a 10mm fan. It is probably just my stubborn streak, but I have always been Hell bent against the 10mm for wimps, aka 40 s&w, simply because of the reason it was developed.

[MandolinMan]

Thanks for the responses.

I've read a lot of things about this over the last half century (and had a little bit of first hand real world observation as well), and the only consistent things
I've found is that when someone is shot, with any and everything from a .22 to a 12ga, sometimes it works, and sometimes, it doesn't.

I agree, and think this is about as conclusive as we can really be.

[Archie]

Mandolin Man; there have been numerous 'studies' done exploring the effectiveness of handgun rounds in stopping an attacker.

No matter who does the research or what procedures are followed or what conclusions are drawn, SOMEONE will object. This issue is somewhat akin to having a clear and final decision about which flavor of ice cream is best.

I suggest you read several of the studies and opinions on the subject and decide which one or ones is most 'reasonable'. I adjure you to NOT allow anyone else to decide for you, or just to follow the masses, or be 'politically correct' in the specific issue.

[adamBomb]

I was wondering if there was any credible data on the effectiveness of various handgun calibers in real world scenarios.

I think others have done an excellent job of answering this question. For example,

I spent a lot of time on this issue professionally as well and when it comes right down to it, handgun calibers are a compromise between a knife and a long gun. All will stop a threat when put in the right spot. But the spots are bigger with more power, so the skill of placing the lethal penetration has to be more precise with a smaller spot (less power).

The problem with all such analyses is that there is no generally accepted definition for the term "effectiveness".

If I am approached on the street by a person who starts to mug me and when I draw my gun, the person runs away, was the gun "effective"? Is the gun only "effective" if the target is hit? Or does the target have to be "incapacitated"? And if so, how do we define "incapacitate" and how quickly must it ensue after the gun is fired to be counted?

Until a definition is proposed and widely adopted, those are rhetorical questions because until there's a definition nobody even knows if the currently collected data sets have enough elements to be meaningful.

Essentially the problem with any data showing gun effectiveness is that no two situations are going to be the same. Handgun A worked great in situation A but did not work in situation B, etc. There will be situations where a small gun/caliber was more effective than a larger one and vice versa. What and how you carry is your personal choice and there is no right answer for every situation. Even if you were to use what is best for 99% of situations it only takes falling into that 1% 1 time for it to be a deadly mistake. Having said all of that, simply having a gun as a civilian, knowing how to use it, when to use it, etc is going to put you leaps and bounds above others in a bad situation.

[jmr40]

There have been thousands of such tests. None are perfect and people can look at the same data and reach very different conclusions. But there are definite trends if you look at enough of them.

The bottom line is this. Shot placement with enough penetration to reach vital organs is the key. Bullet weight,velocity, expansion and/or bullet diameter are secondary. In fact unless they aid penetration are at best irrelevant. Anything any of the above does to limit penetration to an unacceptable level is a detriment.

Under ideal conditions, against human threats, any of the common cartridges such as 38, 9mm, 45ACP, 40S&W, 357mag and others are all pretty darn close and always have been. You can look at data from over 100 years ago and as long as similar ammo is used there never has been a clear winner.

The waters were muddied by influential gun writers making outrageous claims that 45 ACP hardball would be effective 19 times out of 20 and FMJ 9mm would only work 12 times out of 20. That was pure BS with no basis in fact. All of the data, current as well as from 100 years ago says that FMJ is effective about 2/3 of the time regardless of caliber. Quality HP ammo is in the 85-95% range depending on the exact bullet and caliber. Some guys are impressed that one load might be 4% better than another. I'm not.

When choosing a firearm factors other than caliber should be the deciding factor. Ammo capacity, gun size and weight, recoil, cost, accuracy, barrier penetration, effective range, reliability, and even personal preference are all factors that have to be weighed.

[Nanuk]

The FBI maintains stats. Obviously the 9 is doing pretty well because they switched back to it.

No, they are switching back because their Lawyers and accountants can qualify with it easier and the ammo is cheaper.

They claim that the 9mm has benefited from bullet technology, then so has everything else. I don't see it, in shootings people are still taking many multiple hits. I think that Miami is so far in the past they can go back to the 9mm with no shame.

[Nanuk]

The FBI switched to 9mm and I guarantee you that ammo cost was NOT the reason.

Have you seen the justification letter? I have.

[RickB]

I've been following theories and statistics concerning handgun "stopping power" since the '70s.
I spent a lot of time reading about Hatcher's Relative Stopping Power, Taylor's TKO, Relative Incapacitation Index, etc., and they all focus on one-shot stops.

Trying to predict, or determine based on statistical analysis, the likelihood that a single shot will end the situation, seemed to always be the goal.

A couple of years ago, I read an article written by a guy who, using available data (can't remember which data . . .), determined that there are enough non-ballistic, one-shot stops, of the, "My God, I've been shot!" variety, that cartridge effectiveness is skewed.
Popular cartridges have a disproportionate number of one-shot stops.

I remember one "study" indicated that .32 hardball was as effective as .45 hardball; because a lot more people are shot with .32s than with .45s?

Only if you look at shootings involving more than one shot does the cartridge start to have a real (wait for it . . .) impact on the results.

The writer decided that caliber became disproportionately important after the first shot.

[reynolds357]

Its all a tradeoff. For the average street gun encounter would I rather have a 6 shots in a 44 mag or 21 shots in my CZ 75 9mm. I would choose the 9. I would even choose the 9 at 14 shots.

[SIGSHR]

I would like to see toxicology tests on the deceased-or at least the "stopped threats". It seems the use of drugs has complicated the matter.

[tipoc]

People have been using various drugs for generations now, many generations. It complicates things no more now than in the past.

How many police labs do toxicology panels on dead folks routinely, especially on those found dead with multiple gunshot holes in their bodies? The answer is not many, if any at all. Unless there is a clear reason for doing so and it's not too expensive, it usually won't be done.

tipoc