Interesting Video on Caliber Effectiveness

[Kvon2]

Not sure if this has been shared here but I saw it for the first time this morning and found it interesting. It seems the overall message is still that the best caliber is the one you train with, and maybe don't pick .32acp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nycYxb-zNwc

There's plenty of room for debate but if nothing else, it's a fun video for gun guys to watch.

[TJB101]

Great video

[seanc]

Good presentation of information consistent with data I've seen elsewhere. Generally, a long gun (rifle or shotgun) is better than a handgun in common self defense pistol calibers, which are more successful than mouse guns. I'm not against mouse guns (I like my Beretta 950) as they're capable of stops, even if just a psychological stop. But the common self def calibers are common for a reason.

Including a link to an article from 2011 with basically the same info:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

The most surprising thing I got out of the video was that going by 'Failure to incapacitate', common self defense pistol calibers aren't that far off from long guns: rifle 9%, shotguns 12%, self def pistols 14% vs. 34% failure for mouse guns. It's the "failures" that'll get you killed.

[cslinger]

The most surprising thing I got out of the video was that going by 'Failure to incapacitate', common self defense pistol calibers aren't that far off from long guns: rifle 9%, shotguns 12%, self def pistols 14% vs. 34% failure for mouse guns. It's the "failures" that'll get you killed.

Did they mention the loads for the shotguns/rifles. I know they called out that the 9mm had a lot of ball ammo in the data likely skewing it a bit.

I wonder if the rifles had FMJs skewing data (ripping right through) vs something designed for hunting or defense.

Same with the shotgun. I know they kept discussing 12 gauge 00 buck but is that all the data contained? I mean was there some birdshot type loads skewing the data?

[seanc]

cslinger:
The video and the article I added don't get into the types of rounds used for long guns. Generally, for long guns, the velocity or energy is the most important factor, which can be enhanced with ammo selection. Also, for rifles, the diagram shows an AR, but given the extremely low number of self defense use of rifles of any kind, that category is ANY rifle, so not what people on TFL would expect/recommend (.223/556 SP/HP self def load).

I'm even surprised that the video mentioned that 9mm FMJs skewed the 9mm results for 2 reasons:
A) From other articles I've read, it's not common to know if the rounds were FMJ, HP or SP
B) They could have said the same for .25 ACP, those are almost exclusively FMJ ball, so would .25 ACP be a man-stopper as an HP or SP? (nope)

[rob-c]

I guess the take away from the buckeye firearms article is no mater what you cary. when you practice , it should always be a double tap..

[Kvon2]

I found it interesting that the .32 (and maybe the .25?) malfunctioned as often as the .22

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by rob-c

I guess the take away from the buckeye firearms article is no mater what you cary. when you practice , it should always be a double tap..

Or even better a shotgun.

[cslinger]

Or even better a shotgun.

......with a double tap.

[DaleA]

Contrast this article about caliber effectiveness with the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association?) article that is being discussed in this thread.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=597292

The actual JAMA article is here:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...resultClick=24

The JAMA article talks about caliber with this description:

In all analyses, caliber was coded as either small (.22, .25, and .32), medium (.38, .380, and 9 mm), or large (.357 magnum, .40, .44 magnum, .45, 10 mm, and 7.62 × 39 mm).

The JAMA folk don't take into consideration bullet weight, bullet velocity or bullet construction as factors.

It doesn't seem the JAMA article (by the folk with 'scientific credentials') is nearly as good as this video.

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by cslinger

......with a double tap.

I like the way you think cslinger!

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by from erroneous JAMA article

...
The JAMA article talks about caliber with this description:

Quote:
In all analyses, caliber was coded as either small (.22, .25, and .32), medium (.38, .380, and 9 mm), or large (.357 magnum, .40, .44 magnum, .45, 10 mm, and 7.62 × 39 mm).

The JAMA folk didn't take *Math* into consideration either, putting 7.62mm in with "large".

Last time I checked, 7.62mm *EXACTLY* was .3000000", aka .30 caliber, which would snugly fit in their "small" group with .22, .25 and .32.

[GunXpatriot]

It's a good video, but this data is so limiting and hard to apply to the real world that it's almost useless, other than that it's interesting to look at IMO...

[Kvon2]

It's a good video, but this data is so limiting and hard to apply to the real world that it's almost useless, other than that it's interesting to look at IMO...

like I said in my original post, it seems the overall message is that most calibers are pretty effective, .357 still kicks ass, and 32, 25 and 22 are probably not your best options.

[Brian Pfleuger]

It's an interesting video but it's still got some personal bias when he's trying to make a point, and some odd "math".

For instance, at 1:45, he says "difference of 5 percent are nothing to get excited about, details too fine to catch in the study could easily swing things a few points in either direction" and the text says "5% or less is not significant". Later on, (7:21) when trying to prove that the .45acp is no better (and maybe worse) than other handgun rounds, he goes out of his way to point out that a 5% difference means it "lags a bit behind". He accents this point by saying that the .380acp actually BEATS the handgun average... but doesn't point out that it "beats" that average by only 6%... a mere 1% from what he called "not significant" earlier.

A few seconds later, around the 2:00 mark, he says that when it comes to stopping the attack "bullet size doesn't make any difference", but the bullet sizes he circles at the top of the chart only differ by .096", .380acp to .45acp and only constitute 3 calibers. That is simply not enough data to make such a sweeping claim.

It is interesting to note that the average (mean) number of shots needed to result in incapacitation is more than 1 but less than 2 for all gun types. Since number of shots is "digital", as in whole numbers, there is no difference between 1.2 and 1.8 shots... both are "2" (or more). The only way that statistic has any real meaning is if the Standard Deviation of various rounds is significantly different, and they don't give us that information.

He also says early on that all .22 data of all cartridge and firearm types is pooled into ".22LR" but then he uses that pooled data to "prove" that a .22LR rifle is massively less effective than a "real" rifle or shotgun. While this may in fact be true, it is not a valid conclusion from mixed data.

The biggest problem, though, is the entirely presumptuous extrapolation regarding .410 handguns starting around the 8:40 mark. First, he says "Ellifritz didn't gather data regarding .410 handgun shootings" but then goes on to make several points regarding what might have been, if he had.

First, you have to go back to where he said (in conjecture, no data supports it) that the reason a shotgun firing buckshot is more effective is because "each pellet carries the same energy as a typical handgun round", because.. well, first off that's just not true. 9 pellets with 1550 ft-lbs of energy total each carry about 171 ft-lbs. This is nowhere near a typical handgun round. However, even if we assume his statement to be true, the first correlation he makes is that the reason a .410 handgun might be half as effective as a shotgun is because it fires 5 pellets while the shotgun fires 9. Never mind that the TOTAL ENERGY of those 5 (at most around 300 ft-lbs) is less than TWO shotgun pellets and less than almost any major handgun round and the individual pellet energy (at most about 60 ft-lbs) is barely 20% of almost any major handgun round and only about 1/3 the energy of each shotgun pellet, which he states as the reason the shotgun is so effective. It would seem, if his reckoning were consistent, that a .410 shotshell handgun would only be 1/3rd of 5/9th as effective as a shotgun, or about 18% as effective, which would put it's stop rate at about 15%.

Even worse, when he subtracts the "1/2", he actually only reduces the chart by an unspecified, but much smaller than "1/2" number. There is enough info there to calculate the number though.... he shows it 15% higher than handguns, which are rated at 56%... so that would be 71%.

So, how did reducing the shotgun's 86% by "1/2", result in a 71% rate?

Finally, in what he calls "the most interesting data of all", the "incapacitation success rate" (around 9:50), he points out that there is almost no overall difference in effectiveness between handguns, shotguns and rifles. He then says that "some just do it in 1 or 2 shots instead of 3"... but his chart shows the lowest at 1.22 and the highest at 1.87... in my math, those numbers are all between 1 and 2, which "digitally" means 2... unless we know the Standard Deviation.

[745SW]

I saw the video a few days ago and found it informative.

Over the years from those I've known to those I still know the 9mm is by far the most popular handgun cartridge. Personally Ive fired more 45ACP than all other cartridges combined but in a crises situation and not being in the right state of mind the 9mm is my choice.

To my knowledge the 9mm wasn't common during the 70's and 80's. Popularity took off in the 90's and that's when virtually all my 9mm pistols were acquired/bought. I have/had more pistols chambered in 9mm than all other chamberings combined.