Anyone have a link to gov data and caliber and number of shots to stop attack?
- Thread starter Sheepdog1968
- Start date
- Status
Bigger bullets do make bigger holes. That's true, no question about it.
However, the implication is that "bigger holes" automatically imply a more effective self-defense weapon. The problem is that people generally have no perspective in terms of the scale of what "bigger holes" really means.
I spent some time playing around with a data set resulting from some old FBI testing protocol with various calibers. At one point, I thought it would be interesting to see what percentage of a human the tissue destroyed by a typical handgun round in each caliber would amount to.
I ran the numbers for 10mm, .357Mag, 9mm, .357SIG, .45ACP and .40S&W and noticed something interesting. When I rounded the wound volume results to a single digit, all of them were the same. The average bullet from any of the listed calibers will destroy an amount of tissue equal to about 0.1% of a 180lb person. Will the bigger bullets make bigger holes? Yes, they will--they do, but on average, the differences in wound volume only show up when you extend the precision of the calculation out to the hundredth of a percent of a 180lb person.
What that means is that what tissue is destroyed is far more important than the relatively tiny differences in the amount of tissue destroyed by one of the typical defense calibers vs. one of the other calibers in the group.
Before anyone starts frothing at the mouth, I'm not saying all calibers are equal. They're not.
This compares ONLY data from a selected group of calibers. I'm sure we'll get a few responses by people who mistakenly think they're making a telling point by trying to pretend that what I've said means that a 500S&W Magnum is the same as a .22Short. I didn't. I didn't even say that all the calibers listed are the same--only that the differences in the particular comparison I made were small when taken in perspective.
The comparison totally ignores anything other than wound volume. Anyone with a brain knows that caliber selection impacts a lot more than just wound volume. Capacity, recoil, shot-to-shot recovery times, muzzle blast, concealability, practice costs, etc. are all affected by caliber selection. So even if it were true (and it's not) that all of the listed calibers performed identically in terms of terminal effect, there would still be significant differences that would provide reasons to pick one over the others.
However, the implication is that "bigger holes" automatically imply a more effective self-defense weapon. The problem is that people generally have no perspective in terms of the scale of what "bigger holes" really means.
I spent some time playing around with a data set resulting from some old FBI testing protocol with various calibers. At one point, I thought it would be interesting to see what percentage of a human the tissue destroyed by a typical handgun round in each caliber would amount to.
I ran the numbers for 10mm, .357Mag, 9mm, .357SIG, .45ACP and .40S&W and noticed something interesting. When I rounded the wound volume results to a single digit, all of them were the same. The average bullet from any of the listed calibers will destroy an amount of tissue equal to about 0.1% of a 180lb person. Will the bigger bullets make bigger holes? Yes, they will--they do, but on average, the differences in wound volume only show up when you extend the precision of the calculation out to the hundredth of a percent of a 180lb person.
What that means is that what tissue is destroyed is far more important than the relatively tiny differences in the amount of tissue destroyed by one of the typical defense calibers vs. one of the other calibers in the group.
Before anyone starts frothing at the mouth, I'm not saying all calibers are equal. They're not.
This compares ONLY data from a selected group of calibers. I'm sure we'll get a few responses by people who mistakenly think they're making a telling point by trying to pretend that what I've said means that a 500S&W Magnum is the same as a .22Short. I didn't. I didn't even say that all the calibers listed are the same--only that the differences in the particular comparison I made were small when taken in perspective.
The comparison totally ignores anything other than wound volume. Anyone with a brain knows that caliber selection impacts a lot more than just wound volume. Capacity, recoil, shot-to-shot recovery times, muzzle blast, concealability, practice costs, etc. are all affected by caliber selection. So even if it were true (and it's not) that all of the listed calibers performed identically in terms of terminal effect, there would still be significant differences that would provide reasons to pick one over the others.
Last edited:
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,146
Mindset and shot placement always have been king in self defense shootings. Caliber wars happen because mindset and shot placement are difficult to put numbers to. So we focus on INCHES of penetration. Fractions of inches of expansion. Wound cavities etc. All quantitative data.
Personally I shoot .40 because it blends ballistics and capacity. But most importantly I am accurate with it. I shoot .40 better than I shoot 9mm. But I shoot .45 in a 1911 more accurately than .40. Less capacity so I usually don't carry a .45 much anymore.
Personally I shoot .40 because it blends ballistics and capacity. But most importantly I am accurate with it. I shoot .40 better than I shoot 9mm. But I shoot .45 in a 1911 more accurately than .40. Less capacity so I usually don't carry a .45 much anymore.
In reply to JohnKSa's post about wound volume: (I carry 9mm so I'm not trying to start a caliber war or say you need larger).
Comparing wound volume to body weight is not in any way meaningful, the unit of body weight vs. the unit of wound channel size is just too different. Kinda like the Merchant of Venice's "pound of flesh". It depends on where we take that pound from doesn't it?
Discounting a CNS hit, we "stop" the attacker via blood loss which deprives the brain of oxygen. The diameter of the hole determines the flow rate and minor differences in size make a huge difference in flow rate. A 1/2" pipe doesn't flow half the water of a 1" pipe, it flows less than half, at a low gravity pressure rate 7 gallon per min vs. 16 gal per min. The difference gets bigger under pressure, like for an artery.
So, a .45 cal bullet expanded to .78" will flow a lot more than a .56" expanded 9mm. A lot more permanent cavity volume as well. When you increase the diameter by 50% the area increases by 125%, so going from .56 to .78 would be near a 100% increase in area (or more? I'm too lazy to do the math
).
So, if placed in the muscle tissue of a leg, who cares? If through a major artery or organ (like the heart) it will make a difference.
Personally, I trade cheap ammo, low recoil/faster follow up shots and high capacity to make up for diameter, I'll just shoot 'em more. There is no right answer though, it's a trade off. Gimme a 15+1 capacity .45 ACP with the recoil, size, and weight of my 9mm P226 and there would be nothing to lose and everything to gain by making a bigger hole.
Which brings us back to pick a gun you can shoot well in a major caliber and practice precise shot placement-heart/brain stem under stress.
(Look up the Pons, mid-brain and Medulla, these 3 structures are the brain stem and your aim point)
Comparing wound volume to body weight is not in any way meaningful, the unit of body weight vs. the unit of wound channel size is just too different. Kinda like the Merchant of Venice's "pound of flesh". It depends on where we take that pound from doesn't it?
Discounting a CNS hit, we "stop" the attacker via blood loss which deprives the brain of oxygen. The diameter of the hole determines the flow rate and minor differences in size make a huge difference in flow rate. A 1/2" pipe doesn't flow half the water of a 1" pipe, it flows less than half, at a low gravity pressure rate 7 gallon per min vs. 16 gal per min. The difference gets bigger under pressure, like for an artery.
So, a .45 cal bullet expanded to .78" will flow a lot more than a .56" expanded 9mm. A lot more permanent cavity volume as well. When you increase the diameter by 50% the area increases by 125%, so going from .56 to .78 would be near a 100% increase in area (or more? I'm too lazy to do the math
).So, if placed in the muscle tissue of a leg, who cares? If through a major artery or organ (like the heart) it will make a difference.
Personally, I trade cheap ammo, low recoil/faster follow up shots and high capacity to make up for diameter, I'll just shoot 'em more. There is no right answer though, it's a trade off. Gimme a 15+1 capacity .45 ACP with the recoil, size, and weight of my 9mm P226 and there would be nothing to lose and everything to gain by making a bigger hole.
Which brings us back to pick a gun you can shoot well in a major caliber and practice precise shot placement-heart/brain stem under stress.
(Look up the Pons, mid-brain and Medulla, these 3 structures are the brain stem and your aim point)
Last edited:
It absolutely does, and that's why it's important to understand how little of a person is actually damaged by a bullet.
Once you realize that the differences between the amount tissue the common defense calibers will destroy is a tiny fraction of a percent of a person's total weight, it becomes obvious that the real concern should be concentrated on things that will make a difference, or that have a really good chance of making a significant difference, not on things that have very little chance of making a significant difference or that have a chance of making only a very small difference.
Sure, if you get lucky and put a bullet into a major blood vessel, a bigger one will likely result in faster incapacitation, but there are several important things left unsaid.
First of all, it depends on getting lucky--as you say, hitting anywhere other than an ideal spot will mean that the size of the bullet is unlikely to have any effect at all when we're talking about the differences in the calibers I listed.
Second, it ignores the fact that handgun stops are rarely physiological stops. People most commonly give up, they don't stop because they die or are physically incapacitated. Again, probability is the major factor here and caliber has virtually nothing to do with it.
Third, even a rapid bleed out can give a determined opponent time to kill multiple people. If you absolutely have to have a physiological stop in time to save a life you will likely need to keep shooting (and making good hits) until a bullet hits the CNS or physically disables the attacker.
Fourth, and you do touch on this lightly, caliber selection affects more than just terminal effect and many of the factors affected are much more likely to have a significant effect on the outcome of an armed encounter than terminal effect.
In general, my study on the topic has convinced me that when choosing a self-defense handgun in the general performance class being discussed, the vast majority would be far better served by totally disregarding terminal ballistics and making the choice based exclusively on the many other factors involved in weapon selection.
Last edited:
Blood pressure loss, actually.
Well, that's all true when it comes to flow rate in a tube, but if the tube is penetrated significantly, the pressure drops precipitously, and I have trouble visualizing how a somewhat larger cut will have much more effect than a some smaller one.
So, what would doubling the area of the cut do in terms of effectiveness? If one has put a hole of any appreciable size through an artery, it will no longer hold pressure very effectively.
Actually, I'm not sure that, in a rough and tumble violent attack, a drop in systemic blood pressure caused by severing or puncturing just any artery would have much in the way of immediate effect. Rather, it would seem that one would have to damage the aorta, near the pump.
That's just conjecture on my part. Mas Ayoob's recommendation to keep a copy of Gray's Anatomy close at hand does not give me a quick answer to that one. But if it is true, it would indicate that having a higher probability of hitting the aorta would mean more than making a bigger hole in it. And that higher probability would come from more quick hits.
Heck, if a hit to the heart itself may not effect a quick enough physiological stop, terminal ballistics are likely not much of a determinant, assuming adequrate penetration.
We know from watching training on the use of bladed weapons for self defense that one can prevent an attacker from succeeding. Cutting the right tendons and/or nerves can prevent him from continuing an effective attack. I suggest that the same thing is true when it comes to using firearms for self defense, and that the likelihood of a "stop", such as it would be, would be higher when more shots are fired in that kind of scenario, also.
I pretty much agree which is why I like 9mm and lots of training. But, I don't totally discount a bigger hole, it does help if all else could be equal. If I could afford it, I'd like to get a P227 to try out. Same function as the P226 I'm very good with, same holsters, but 10-12 .45 ACP and I bet the recoil is pretty easy to manage.
At some point bigger diameter will help the shooter start to make their own luck so to speak. Fire a burst, maybe you barely miss the heart with the 9mm HP but the .78" expanded .45 takes an 1/8" out of it?
Good discussion though, the thinking that 1-2 shots should stop any threat if they are .45 ACP is bunk. 1-2 .45s through the lung don't mean squat, and hitting the heart or brain with either 9mm or .45 would probably have the same result. Tie goes to bigger round on the marginal "hits."
At some point bigger diameter will help the shooter start to make their own luck so to speak. Fire a burst, maybe you barely miss the heart with the 9mm HP but the .78" expanded .45 takes an 1/8" out of it?
Good discussion though, the thinking that 1-2 shots should stop any threat if they are .45 ACP is bunk. 1-2 .45s through the lung don't mean squat, and hitting the heart or brain with either 9mm or .45 would probably have the same result. Tie goes to bigger round on the marginal "hits."
You can play around with the probabilities to see how likely this is to happen.
Out of curiosity, I set up a simulation that calculated how much more often a .45 bullet would hit a target than a 9mm bullet based on a simplified target and some assumptions. Basically I created a simple circular "bullseye" surrounded by a larger circular area twice the diameter of the bullseye. The assumption was made that hits were evenly distributed across the entire area of the target.
The result was that about one out of every hundred shots from the larger caliber would score a hit on the bullseye when the smaller one didn't. The other 99 shots they either both missed or both hit.
Obviously, that's a very simple simulation but I wasn't trying to calculate an exact figure that would provide a highly accurate replication of gunfight probabilities, I was just trying to get a rough ballpark idea of the situation.
It's obviously true that a bigger bullet does give you a more chance of hitting something important and it does do more destruction. The problem is that from what I have been able to determine, virtually no one has any real perspective on what "more" means in either of those statements. My exploration of the topic strongly suggests that it doesn't mean much.
That's why I generally advise people to ignore terminal effect in the caliber selection process as long as they're picking something from the general performance class of the calibers I listed in my earlier post.
Well, that might tell you something about shooting at a stationary target, but I suggest that the attacker will likely be moving quickly. Time will enter into the equation. Then there is the number of dimensions.
If the target is moving, turning, twisting, and moving up and down, how would one know which shots would have nicked the heart and which would not?
It seems that this thread has become all about caliber again.
Effective defensive weapon use is a multivariate problem that is simply not amenable to solving via anecdotal evidence. It seems to me what happens is that people gravitate toward caliber wars because it seems scientific because things like bullet expansion in ballistic gelatin is repeatable, rely on studies on animals such as the Strasborg experiments or even the early wound ballistic work on animals that gave us the .45 ACP round.
Reality is much more messy--shot placement, aggressor resolve, intervening barriers, amount of rounds expended, aggressor distance, lighting, risk of hitting bystanders, resolve of defender, ammunition capacity of defender, aggressor weapons, physical mobility of both parties, size and weight of defensive gun, alternative sighting systems, the number of aggressors, surprise, and so on, play havoc with the simple narrative of caliber effectiveness trumping all.
What generally happens is that parties in the thread exchange statements which are more or less true by themselves, but ignore the conditional modifications caused by other factors. Since no multivariate dataset exists currently to resolve how much each factor matters, then statements can be partially true and false at the same time--this leads to more heat than light.
Right now, self defense is more an art than a science, but we have advanced--if you doubt it, read earlier works where complaints about round nosed bullets, slow and weak cartridges, whether two handed shooting was more accurate than one, etc.
Effective defensive weapon use is a multivariate problem that is simply not amenable to solving via anecdotal evidence. It seems to me what happens is that people gravitate toward caliber wars because it seems scientific because things like bullet expansion in ballistic gelatin is repeatable, rely on studies on animals such as the Strasborg experiments or even the early wound ballistic work on animals that gave us the .45 ACP round.
Reality is much more messy--shot placement, aggressor resolve, intervening barriers, amount of rounds expended, aggressor distance, lighting, risk of hitting bystanders, resolve of defender, ammunition capacity of defender, aggressor weapons, physical mobility of both parties, size and weight of defensive gun, alternative sighting systems, the number of aggressors, surprise, and so on, play havoc with the simple narrative of caliber effectiveness trumping all.
What generally happens is that parties in the thread exchange statements which are more or less true by themselves, but ignore the conditional modifications caused by other factors. Since no multivariate dataset exists currently to resolve how much each factor matters, then statements can be partially true and false at the same time--this leads to more heat than light.
Right now, self defense is more an art than a science, but we have advanced--if you doubt it, read earlier works where complaints about round nosed bullets, slow and weak cartridges, whether two handed shooting was more accurate than one, etc.
Change that to "shot placement and timing" and realize that those are a function of grip size and shape fit, trigger pull weight and length of pull, sight radius, bore axis, momentum of the ejecta, and skill; and add bullet design and construction.
It is the case, however, that both the momentum of the ejecta and ammunition capacity will both be heavily influenced by the "caliber". There is more to that than caliber "effectiveness" or terminal ballistics.
I've spent a lot of time over the years researching this. I dropped big money on Marshal and Sanow's book when it first came out. I own a copy and have read Duncan MacPherson's Bullet Penetration Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma I've read Dr Fackler, viewed Vietnam era DOD films on high velocity projectiles and treatment of the wounds they cause and I've exchanged emails and had several long telephone conversations with Dr Gary Roberts (a protege of Dr Fackler and who recommended MacPherson's work to me). I am far from an expert, but this is what I have concluded from my layman's study of the issue:
With modern expanding ammunition any round in caliber .38 special and above that penetrates enough to reach the vital organs if one has to shoot through an arm or other obstacle because of the way the target presents itself is adequate for defensive use. (13 inches is sufficient) One should choose the round that meets these criteria and the platform he/she performs the best with.
If you have bullet the size of a .38 or larger and it had enough penetration to reach the vital organs even if you have to shoot through a forearm or bicep to get there you have an adequate defensive round. The next criteria you must look at is if YOU can make multiple fast and accurate hits with it.
THERE ARE NO MAGIC BULLETS
At the end of the day, it all comes down to your personal skill and luck.
Yes, luck, karma, whatever you want to call it figures into the equation too. We don't like to think about it, but it is a factor. If it wasn't, our highly trained and skilled operators in Tier One military units would never be killed by poorly trained soldiers and terrorists in third world countries. But it happens....We train hard to eliminate as much of the "luck" factor as we can, but it's always there to some degree.
With modern expanding ammunition any round in caliber .38 special and above that penetrates enough to reach the vital organs if one has to shoot through an arm or other obstacle because of the way the target presents itself is adequate for defensive use. (13 inches is sufficient) One should choose the round that meets these criteria and the platform he/she performs the best with.
If you have bullet the size of a .38 or larger and it had enough penetration to reach the vital organs even if you have to shoot through a forearm or bicep to get there you have an adequate defensive round. The next criteria you must look at is if YOU can make multiple fast and accurate hits with it.
THERE ARE NO MAGIC BULLETS
At the end of the day, it all comes down to your personal skill and luck.
Yes, luck, karma, whatever you want to call it figures into the equation too. We don't like to think about it, but it is a factor. If it wasn't, our highly trained and skilled operators in Tier One military units would never be killed by poorly trained soldiers and terrorists in third world countries. But it happens....We train hard to eliminate as much of the "luck" factor as we can, but it's always there to some degree.
It usually comes down to caliber wars because it is easy to buy a gun in a certain caliber with certain ammo and "feel" best prepared. I was just discussing wound dia. to have something to discuss and enjoyed all the responses.
It is hard to actually get professional training and have the discipline to practice said training in a realistic manner. Training is by orders of magnitude more important than gun/caliber. But, how many THR members even have received professional training geared towards realistic gunfighting? 5%, 10%? I'd be surprised if it was over 10%.
Look at the S&T sub-forum, it is one of the least popular by thread count and post. Whenever training is mentioned the excuses come out of the woodwork as to why people can't do it from not needing "commando" training to I can't afford it. And yet, they all seem to be able to afford to start a new thread about the new gun they just bought or want to buy. Could have used that money for a local 2 day defensive handgun course with the gun they already own instead...
The best way to perform any task is to train realistically for performance in that environment, not buy a better tool.
It is hard to actually get professional training and have the discipline to practice said training in a realistic manner. Training is by orders of magnitude more important than gun/caliber. But, how many THR members even have received professional training geared towards realistic gunfighting? 5%, 10%? I'd be surprised if it was over 10%.
Look at the S&T sub-forum, it is one of the least popular by thread count and post. Whenever training is mentioned the excuses come out of the woodwork as to why people can't do it from not needing "commando" training to I can't afford it. And yet, they all seem to be able to afford to start a new thread about the new gun they just bought or want to buy. Could have used that money for a local 2 day defensive handgun course with the gun they already own instead...
The best way to perform any task is to train realistically for performance in that environment, not buy a better tool.
That is an extremely perceptive observation.
People desperately want to believe that they can insure their safety with a buying decision. Unfortunately, what wins gunfights isn't purchased at a store, it's earned on the range.
Deaf Smith
Member
Don't know about 'government data' But my wife has worked in Truama I, ER, CVICU, CV OR, and other units for over 30 years and she says in the ER they had lots of people come in shot.
Those shot with .22/.25 many times walked in complaining. As the cartridges power and shot placement improved more were carried in, some though still talking.
But, those hit square with a shotgun were always carried in, and NEVER talking (or even awake.)
She said those shot with shotguns didn't look so bad when they cleaned up all the blood, but when they cracked open their chest, there was so much internal bleeding from so many organs hit, it was hard to stop all the bleeding.
Yes there is such a thing as stopping power. It's not absolute. Many factors like emotional state(POed people tend to hang in there longer), presence of drugs (meth in particular), mental state(as in psychos), physical state (big and fit TEND to hang in there longer).
But yes, bigger bullets TEND to stop better, faster bullets TEND to stop better, lots of bullets TEND to stop better, better designed bullets TEND to stop better. And yes correct shot placement TENDS to stop better.
True there have been cases where even the 12 gauge has failed (but not many), and cases where the lowly .25 has succeeded (but not all that many), but it is there and yes a 9mm isn't as capable as a .45 if given same ballistic shape and shot placement.
So carry the most powerful handgun you can control and conceal (if need be). And most importantly... shoot strait, for skill is number one.
Deaf
Those shot with .22/.25 many times walked in complaining. As the cartridges power and shot placement improved more were carried in, some though still talking.
But, those hit square with a shotgun were always carried in, and NEVER talking (or even awake.)
She said those shot with shotguns didn't look so bad when they cleaned up all the blood, but when they cracked open their chest, there was so much internal bleeding from so many organs hit, it was hard to stop all the bleeding.
Yes there is such a thing as stopping power. It's not absolute. Many factors like emotional state(POed people tend to hang in there longer), presence of drugs (meth in particular), mental state(as in psychos), physical state (big and fit TEND to hang in there longer).
But yes, bigger bullets TEND to stop better, faster bullets TEND to stop better, lots of bullets TEND to stop better, better designed bullets TEND to stop better. And yes correct shot placement TENDS to stop better.
True there have been cases where even the 12 gauge has failed (but not many), and cases where the lowly .25 has succeeded (but not all that many), but it is there and yes a 9mm isn't as capable as a .45 if given same ballistic shape and shot placement.
So carry the most powerful handgun you can control and conceal (if need be). And most importantly... shoot strait, for skill is number one.
Deaf
There should be no doubt at all that a 1/4 inch diameter round out of a low powered handgun is not at all comparable to a round from a centerfire long gun with a bore diameter approaching 3/4 of an inch--3 times larger diameter--and with a payload 10 times heavier.
But that has absolutely zero relevance to comparisons between the cartridges under discussion on this thread because the differences are nowhere near as pronounced. It's like saying that a moped obviously gets WAY better mileage than an M1 Abrams tank because it's lighter and therefore a Honda Accord obviously gets better mileage than a Toyota Camry because it's lighter.
It is certainly true that if you pick extremes then you can make categorical statements when comparing two calibers. It doesn't follow at all that comparisons between cartridges in the same general performance class will automatically follow the same patterns exhibited when comparing extremes.
For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true.
We DEFINITELY know many other things to be true when comparing a .45 to a 9mm. For a given size gun, the 9mm tends to be easier to shoot, shot-to-shot recovery times are faster, capacity is higher, etc. For a given capacity, the 9mm is smaller, easier to conceal, etc.
All of those factors are easily measured and a number of them are extremely likely to have a significant beneficial effect on the ability of a person to use the handgun effectively in self-defense.
So, getting back to the assumption of truth we made, let's do something smart. Let's balance our assumed fact against the other facts we know to be true. Let's compare the benefits/disadvantages from the assumed truth to the benefits/disadvantages from what we can actually measure, what we can actually demonstrate to be true.
The first problem is that a useful comparison needs more quantification than a nebulous term like "more". So we have assumed one round is more capable. How much more capable?
The fact is the practical difference in the real world (how much faster someone stops attacking as a result of this increased capability) is so small that no one has been able to gather enough data quantify it. Experts like Urey Patrick broadly characterize differences between common defensive handgun calibers with comments suggesting that it might make a difference in 1% of shootings. Numbers that agree pretty well with the rough simulations and comparisons I've done primarily to entertain and inform myself.
So what makes sense? Should we really spend time worrying about something that might make a difference in 1% of shootings? Or should we concentrate on things that can make a difference in virtually every shooting?
Those who like the idea of buying stopping power at the store and defining it by a number on a gun barrel or a box of ammunition will probably choose to do the former. Those who understand that stopping power is primarily a skill learned through practice should focus on the latter.
Again, it's important to understand that the focus of my comments is a pretty narrow range of handgun caliber terminal performance. I am in no way suggesting that all calibers are so similar in terminal performance as to be identical. Just that within the fairly small performance class that encompasses the most commonly recommended self-defense calibers the terminal performance is so similar that other factors should dominate any decisions about what to rely on for carry or home defense.
Last edited:
Deaf Smith
Member
That is part of why I said to pick the most powerful handgun you can control and conceal. It may be a 9mm, or.32, or .454! One balances out clout .vs. control .vs. concealability. Hey.. I pack a Glock 26 and S&W Centennial .38. But I know if I could (and would) openly carry, it would be my Glock 35 with Lake Storm .357 Sig barrel and Double Tap a 125s at 1550+ fps.
As for
being true, a) I didn't say it was massively overwhelming, but was more capable. b) the .45 having 1/3 more bullet area translates into far more VOLUME of tissue destroyed. Shear math shows this.
It is superior. Whether it's one you are willing to find a platform and spend time to master that's up to you. I don't have that time or inclination (and long time ago in IPSC I did have both.)
Deaf
Actually, it translates, on average, into something like several hundredths of a percent more of the attacker destroyed. That is what the math shows and that was discussed earlier in the thread.
When you start talking about trying to incapacitate a large object, like a human, by destroying a couple of ounces at a time (a tenth of a percent of the total attacker per shot), it becomes very obvious that it's not about being able to destroy a few tenths of an ounce more with one caliber than another, it's all about WHICH few ounces are being destroyed.
Even if it is superior in terms of practical terminal effect* (something no one to date has been able to quantify, or even prove conclusively), it is a mistake to pretend that superiority in one single quality of a handgun, is sufficient to justify a statement implying that it is superior overall. It's like saying one car is superior to another based exclusively on the mileage it provides. In reality, there are many qualities of a vehicle that could far outweigh the value of having mileage that is inferior to another vehicle being compared to the first.
That becomes even more true if, as in this case, the "mileage" difference is small enough that, in spite of considerable effort and expense put forth, no one is been able to demonstrate that there even really is a practical difference in the "mileage".
Think about it for a moment. Why are we even having this debate after more than a hundred years of trying to answer the question? Because it's so obvious that one caliber (out of the class under discussion) is superior to another in terms of practical terminal effect? Clearly not. Because scientific experiments have demonstrated a superiority of one caliber over another in terms of practical terminal effect? Again, that's obviously not true. Is it because statistical studies have demonstrated the superiority of one over another? Nope.
The reason this debate goes on is precisely because no one, in decades of trying, has been able to prove the superiority of one caliber, out of the group in question, in terms of practical terminal effect.
People get a nice warm feeling by clinging to the belief that a number on an ammo box or gun barrel is going to give them a practical advantage in a gunfight. There's no accepted evidence to support that--if there were this debate wouldn't even be taking place.
So what's the takeaway? The practical recommendation is for people to choose a firearm in the general performance class under discussion, if at all possible. Pick one that doesn't handicap you in terms of performance at the range--you need to be able to put rounds on target and do it fast. Pick one that's practical for carry given your specific circumstances. Go down the list of all the things that make a handgun a good or bad choice for you and, if at the end, you end up with more than one candidate that fills the bill in every respect, THEN, it won't hurt to use caliber preference as a tie breaker. But it should be the LAST thing considered, only after the more important factors have been addressed.
*"practical terminal effect" is how much faster the attacker ceases the attack, how much more likely he is to cease the attack, or how much more likely the defender is to survive/remain uninjured. That's as opposed to "theoretical terminal effect" based on number crunching that demonstrates, for example differences in the tenths of an ounce of tissue destroyed per shot with one caliber vs. another.
Posted by Deaf Smith:
But more hits yield a higher likelihood of hitting something vital.
Sounds good at first, but "control" is not a go or no-go proposition. No matter how much one has trained, a pistol with less recoil can be controlled better in rapid fire than one with more.
Somewhat more volume, per shot.
But more hits yield a higher likelihood of hitting something vital.
That's always been my thinking as well.
I've always balanced caliber vs. capacity with capacity weighing more heavily into the equation over the last few years due to:
1. The improvement in SD ammo over the years.
2. An apparent increase in multiple attacker scenarios.
My first XD was a .40, since when I bought it I had a choice between 9 rounds of 40 vs. 10 rounds of 9mm (when I bought my first XD, they only offered 10 round 9mm mags).
When they redesigned the 9mm magazines to hold 13 rounds, I went down in caliber in order to gain around 40% increase in capacity.
Heck - a friend's wife (they're new shooters in the SD world) uses an M&P 15-22 as her bed gun. Normally I wouldn't recommend a 22, but a 25 round magazine of the right 22 could really ruin a BG's (and a few of his buddies day), and she's both comfortable with, and can shoot the heck out of it.
I think it's long past time some folks in here rethink their "bigger is better" mantra.
Deaf Smith
Member
FBI's own protocol specificity says penetration, size of crush cavity, secondary missiles, etc.. enhance effectiveness (and then deny there is 'stopping power' at the same time.)
Do the math on how much area and volume (crush cavity, not stretch) a 9mm .vs. .45 gives. Since both have plenty of penetration it will surprise you.
So you guys think if you put as many bullets out as fast as you can you will be more likely to 'hit something vital'? That's called spray-n-pray. It does not have a good track record.
And if that rapid fire is so important, then a .32 Scorpion would be the answer, right?
Mchine-gunning your opponent is not wise. More lead in the air? Ok. Hope you have lots of bullets, lots of time, and only one assailant (and no bystanders.)
Question though.. Do you really think it is easier to get two or three good hits in a row compared to one or two from a more powerful weapon?
I think it's long time past for some here to realize that 13, 15, 18 round capacity are not the answer to the question. That more lead in the air is not the answer to the question either.
It's finding the balance for YOU, not for anyone else. Some can control a .45 well, some a .40, some a 9mm, some may be only able to control a .380. Ok, fine. Pick the most powerful weapon you can control.
Deaf
Why do folks always go to this extreme?
Just because I carry more rounds doesn't mean I'm going to "spray-n-pray".
AND realizing there are two sides to every coin, who is to say I might miss with my first shot (especially if the BG takes evasive action, or if I'm jumped) and hit with my second (after I have him on defense, or have had time to recover from the initial / surprise attack)?
Folks keep coming up with the perfect bad situation to justify what they believe.
Old Tom (Gresham) can be a little hard headed, but he couldn't deny the data / reports any longer, and finally dumped his 45 for something with higher capacity.
Posted by Deaf Smith:
But unless the projectiles hit something important, the volume means nothing.
The probability of one .45 round hitting something vital is effectively indistinguishable (though slightly higher) than that of an equally well aimed 9MM. The total probability then falls to the number of aimed shots.
Simple physics.
The difference is not as great as you might think. Factor in the difference in the number of hits.
But unless the projectiles hit something important, the volume means nothing.
Some of us know and can prove analytically that shooting controlled rounds faster will raise the probability of hitting something vital that is hidden within the three dimensional moving target.
The probability of one .45 round hitting something vital is effectively indistinguishable (though slightly higher) than that of an equally well aimed 9MM. The total probability then falls to the number of aimed shots.
That's not what we are talking about at all.
I know of no informed option that puts the terminal ballistics of the .32 ACP in the acceptable range.
Total capacity addresses a different question, which is how many shots are you likely to need. Usually, 13 are a whole lot better than 5, but 13 may be on the high side.
More well aimed shots in a short interval may well be the answer.
No one, however practiced, can shoot a .45 or a .40 as quickly on target as a 9MM of the same size, weight, and design.
Simple physics.
With my 9mm P226 I can keep all shots in a 6" circle at 7yds as fast as I can pull the trigger. That isn't spray and pray. 3 separate 9mm wound channels in the vital zone beats 2 .45 wound channels IMO. The direct comparison pistol would be a P220 with 8 round capacity or P227 at 10. I'd feel well armed with a P220/227, but it is a big difference between a 15 rd 9mm for the same size and weight. Not that any of this is that simple though...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
