Confused... Handguns too powerful for self-defense?

[Hartkopf]

This talk of over penetration is kinda funny considering the 9mm actually penetrates deeper than the 40 and 45 in testing I’ve done.

When the same bullet is shot into something tougher than just plain gel, the 9mm penetration is slightly more than the 40 and considerably more than the 45.

A local officer who spent time in the morgue told me 9mm is actually the best caliber because it gets deep enough more often than the others. I didn’t believe him so I had to do some testing to see if he could possibly be right. I posted the results here on THR a couple of months ago.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That's interesting. I'd love to see the study that went over self-defense shootings and figured out the number of shots fired and number of misses. Do you have a link to the study or a reference of it?

Sure.

Here's one on police shootings.

https://daiglelawgroup.com/new-stud...WVpUldU9swpFlfcbEk3uOoc1BlChNyl-yUgqRXsKk-ttk

Here's another one... links agree probably buried in there:

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-U...d-gun-users-prove-ineffective-at-self-defense

And another with links.

https://www.tierthreetactical.com/1...ats-backed-by-data-and-real-world-experience/

 

[jmr40]

The old line about handguns not being effective is pretty much BS. We have under rated handguns in the past. Handguns in standard cartridges such as 357 Sig and 357 mag, 9mm, 40 S&W, and 45 ACP are very much effective at more limited ranges. I'd even throw in 38 +p and a good case can be made for several others such as 44 Special and 45 Colt. It's just that those are used less often.

A rifles primary advantage is greater range and the ability to make more accurate shots at even close to moderate ranges. But with good ammo and good shot placement you will get pretty much the same results.

I don't buy into the argument that the more powerful handgun cartridges are TOO powerful. But they may be more powerful than necessary. There is no data to show that a 44 mag will stop a human attacker any better than much less powerful cartridges. But you have trade offs where most shooters will be more accurate with less powerful cartridges, and since it cost less to shoot them will spend more time practicing.

 

[WrongHanded]

For those who think split times matter more than damage per shot, may I suggest this:

https://www.luckygunner.com/22-wmr-40-gr-jhp-speer-gold-dot-short-barrel-50-rounds#geltest

And a KelTec with 30 round capacity. Surely that'll get your splits down.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

For those who think split times matter more than damage per shot, may I suggest this:

https://www.luckygunner.com/22-wmr-40-gr-jhp-speer-gold-dot-short-barrel-50-rounds#geltest

And a KelTec with 30 round capacity. Surely that'll get your splits down.

Taking this to an extreme, I remember a thread on one gun forum or another a while back. The OP proposed using a Ruger 10/22 as a home defense gun, outfitted with a bump stock (back when those were legal!) and a massive aftermarket magazine loaded with Stingers. The idea was that if you were ever faced with an intruder, you could just dump a hail of 22 LRs on him at hallway type distances. It would be very controllable, it would be more hearing safe than any centerfire, and shooting someone with a dozen 22s is bound to hit something critical. He concluded by asking "so guys, what do you think?"

My first thought was "this is stupid". After mulling it over for a few seconds, I considered: "this may be stupid enough to work..."

 

[JohnKSa]

While most any caliber has the potential to be lethal, and while people also tend to spend too much time agonizing over caliber differences, it is worthwhile to understand that there are some general performance classes/groups.

Most of the commonly recommended self-defense cartridges fit into the service pistol performance class. These are calibers that provide enough muzzle energy to allow significant expansion and penetration that falls within the FBI recommended range. They are offered in a wide range of handguns and are generally suitable for concealed carry and offer reasonable recoil and shootability even in compact packages.

Below that performance class is what I call the pocket pistol performance class. These calibers do not provide enough muzzle energy to allow significant expansion while still providing penetration that meets the FBI requirements. Generally one must choose between significant expansion and penetration because both can't be achieved at once.

Above the service pistol class is what I call the magnum performance class, or the handgun hunting caliber class. Unlike the division between the service pistol class and the pocket pistol class which is fairly well defined, the division between the magnum performance class and the service pistol class is less clear. Generally speaking, however, calibers in the magnum performance class become extremely punishing when chambered in handguns that are light and compact and suitable for concealed carry and capacity also has a tendency to suffer in that application. One way to get a feel for the difference between this performance class and the service pistol class is that magnum performance calibers often have self-defense loadings that are significantly downloaded compared to the maximum performance available in the caliber while calibers in the service pistol performance class often have self-defense loadings that tend to be hotter than the common loadings.

Between performance classes, you can really see significant differences in terminal effect and it makes sense to give some thought to terminal performance when making a selection across a performance class boundary. Within performance classes, terminal effect tends to be far more similar than different and time spent trying to differentiate members of that class by assessing the terminal effect for self-defense applications is generally better spent on considering other selection criteria.

 

[Varminterror]

I haven’t read all of the responses on the second page, so maybe it was mentioned, but the Ellifritz study proves out three things:

1) There is no statistically supported advantage to carrying more firepower than a 380acp. Such effectively all handguns are just as effective in the real world as others.

2) Handguns en masse are not as successful by multiple measures for defensive shooting as rifles. Such no handgun is as good as a rifle, naturally conceding that my LCP fits in my jeans a lot better than my AR-15.

3) Gun folk absolutely overthink, over-analyze, and over-debate meaningless paper or gel results to comfort themselves in their decision.

 

[Styx]

I haven’t read all of the responses on the second page, so maybe it was mentioned, but the Ellifritz study proves out three things:

1) There is no statistically supported advantage to carrying more firepower than a 380acp. Such effectively all handguns are just as effective in the real world as others.

2) Handguns en masse are not as successful by multiple measures for defensive shooting as rifles. Such no handgun is as good as a rifle, naturally conceding that my LCP fits in my jeans a lot better than my AR-15.

3) Gun folk absolutely overthink, over-analyze, and over-debate meaningless paper or gel results to comfort themselves in their decision.

Basically.... As usual, people over think things and argue based on assumptions, anecdotal evidence, and hearsay... I've yet to see any evidence that handgun calibers generally make a difference when it comes to killing two legged creatures.... Handgun ammo just poked holes that most people generally survive from. What seems to make a difference is penetration and shot placement on vital organs... I guess for some men, they feel more manly the bigger the caliber the carry, and/or have the misconception that larger calibers will kill a man with in one shot... That a shot in the head, heart, etc what a 40 or 45 will stop a man, but being shot in the same place with a 9mms won't. That being shot in the leg, hand, arm, or the like with a 40, 45, 10mm, etc will kill a man as well.....

I carry 9mms because IMHO, it will get the job done just as well depending on ammo choice of course, it's cheaper, and I can afford to shoot more of it.

 

[Kleanbore]

but the Ellifritz study proves out three things:

I respectfully suggest that, due to the number of variables, such as the precise location of entry wounds, angles of entry, posture, the sequence of the wounds, and the physiological factors, etc. as compared to the number of data points, the study does not really, and cannot, "prove" much of anything.

Further, there are other objective means to prove that in some circumstances, the .380 would be unlikely to suffice.

 

[Kleanbore]

I've yet to see any evidence that handgun calibers generally make a difference when it comes to killing two legged creatures....... I guess for some men, they feel more manly the bigger the caliber the carry, and/or have the misconception that larger calibers will kill a man with in one shot... That a shot in the head, heart, etc what a 40 or 45 will stop a man, but being shot in the same place with a 9mms won't. That being shot in the leg, hand, arm, or the like with a 40, 45, 10mm, etc will kill a man as well.....

Remember that any handgun can kill, and that killing is not the objective.

 

[Varminterror]

I respectfully suggest that, due to the number of variables, such as the precise location of entry wounds, angles of entry, posture, the sequence of the wounds, and the physiological factors, etc. as compared to the number of data points, the study does not really, and cannot, "prove" much of anything.

Further, there are other objective means to prove that in some circumstances, the .380 would be unlikely to suffice.

Certainly empirical data can be messy. But do you really believe there’s no value in statistical comparison of over a thousand actual defensive shooting cases? Kinda throwing the baby out with then bath water here...

Reminding also, the Ellifritz study does catalog a dozen or so metrics, including average, number of shots to stop, % failure to stop, % one-shot-stops, % accuracy (head and torso hits vs. total shots), and % actual one shot incapacitations (head or torso one shot hits causing incapacitation). So it sounds great to cast the “too many variables” stone, but it doesn’t particularly do as much damage to that specific study as it does to others which didn’t incorporate as many cases nor as many detailed metrics.

As a Blackbelt in Six Sigma myself - versed in statistical analysis - it’s easy to poke holes in ANY dataset I’ve ever seen, especially proxy generated data, and purely subjective preferences we so often see; “I’ve been a cop for 40 years, I prefer a 45.” But it seems silly to disregard the Ellifritz result and those like it solely because “real world data has too many variables.”

 

[Mainsail]

I respectfully suggest that, due to the number of variables, such as the precise location of entry wounds, angles of entry, posture, the sequence of the wounds, and the physiological factors, etc. as compared to the number of data points, the study does not really, and cannot, "prove" much of anything.

Further, there are other objective means to prove that in some circumstances, the .380 would be unlikely to suffice.

Exactly! The use of the word 'proves' is the giveaway. I doubt even the study's author(s) would be so bold.

Empirical data can at best demonstrate what happened in a single unrepeatable event; from which one can extrapolate and theorize performance in dissimilar events.

Test mediums at best can provide a comparative point (between calibers / bullet designs/ loads) from which to extrapolate, from which one can theorize performance in real-world events.

In any event, we've ranged far from the OP's original questions.

 

[Kleanbore]

Reminding also, the Ellifritz study does catalog a dozen or so metrics, including average, number of shots to stop, % failure to stop, % one-shot-stops, % accuracy (head and torso hits vs. total shots), and % actual one shot incapacitations (head or torso one shot hits causing incapacitation).

FAR too few, considering how stops are effected.

... seems silly to disregard the Ellifritz result and those like it solely because “real world data has too many variables.”

Not to me--not at all.

 

[Varminterror]

If you hang your life on one word, “proves,” then how about this modification:

The Ellifritz study, and those like it which analyze real world defensive shooting event data suggest there’s good reason to doubt any difference in efficacy between any handgun cartridges, regardless of whether it “starts with a 4.”

 

[Kleanbore]

...how about this modification:

The Ellifritz study, and those like it which analyze real world defensive shooting event data suggest there’s good reason to doubt any difference in efficacy between any handgun cartridges, regardless of whether it “starts with a 4.”

No.

I suggest "The Ellifritz study, and those like it which analyze real world defensive shooting event data show that one cannot use caliber as a basis for reliably predicting the results of the shootings with handguns."

 

[Styx]

Remember that any handgun can kill, and that killing is not the objective.

Not being funny or trying to be smart, but does that mean exactly within the context of what I said and the discussion? I think no one including myself argued that handguns could not kill???? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[Varminterror]

No.

I suggest "The Ellifritz study, and those like it which analyze real world defensive shooting event data show that one cannot use caliber as a basis for reliably predicting the results of the shootings with handguns."

In the context of selecting a firearm for defense, this above is a distinction without a difference. “What caliber pistol should I get for defense?” The answer is ultimately that it doesn’t matter, because caliber doesn’t predict outcome.

 

[Styx]

In the context of selecting a firearm for defense, this above is a distinction without a difference. “What caliber pistol should I get for defense?” The answer is ultimately that it doesn’t matter, because caliber doesn’t predict outcome.

The answer should be "the one you're most accurate with and can afford to feed for practice/training purposes" instead of worrying about all the "knock down power" bs...

 

[Varminterror]

Not being funny or trying to be smart, but does that mean exactly within the context of what I said and the discussion? I think no one including myself argued that handguns could not kill???? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It’s legalese to describe the objective of defensive shooting is defense. Killing the attacker is often an unintended result, as there’s no calibration standard between the ability to defend oneself with a firearm by limiting the outcome at “STOP A THREAT QUICKLY” without potentially also killing the attacker. The primary objective isn’t the same as the unintended outcome of accomplishing the objective. Even if most of us subjectively don’t find the unintended outcome as disagreeable as others.

 

[Kleanbore]

n the context of selecting a firearm for defense, this above is a distinction without a difference. “What caliber pistol should I get for defense?” The answer is ultimately that it doesn’t matter, because caliber doesn’t predict outcome.

Not at all!

Due to the influence of the exceptionally large number of other variables, one may not reliably predict outcome on the sis of caliber alone. However, caliber, bullet construction, velocity, and the shooter's ability to use a firearm effectively with a balance of speed and precision can be expected to have a profound effect on the outcome.

 

[Styx]

It’s legalese to describe the objective of defensive shooting is defense. Killing the attacker is often an unintended result, as there’s no calibration standard between the ability to defend oneself with a firearm by limiting the outcome at “STOP A THREAT QUICKLY” without potentially also killing the attacker. The primary objective isn’t the same as the unintended outcome of accomplishing the objective. Even if most of us subjectively don’t find the unintended outcome as disagreeable as others.

I said "I've yet to see any evidence that handgun calibers generally make a difference when it comes to killing two legged creatures." Basically saying that there's little proof that one handgun caliber can kill better than another, and I guess I was lost because his response about the goal of self defense shootintg was a little off topic and not within the context of what I was getting at...

I'm not even sure about what you and Kleanbore are debating because, sematic aside, it seems to me that you both are pretty much saying the same exact thing...

 

[Kleanbore]

I said "I've yet to see any evidence that handgun calibers generally make a difference when it comes to killing two legged creatures." Basically saying that there's little proof that one handgun caliber can kill better than another, and I guess I was lost because his response about the goal of self defense shootintg was a little off topic and not within the context of what I was getting at...

Then what are you getting at?

The thread is about self defense. You have introduced the subject of killing.

 

[Styx]

Then what are you getting at?

The thread is about self defense. You have introduced the subject of killing.

"Killing" wasn't the point of my post. The main idea of my post was to point out that, IMHO, handgun calibers don't make much of a difference. Yes, in some cases self defense and stopping a threat involves killing and in some it doesn't, but wasn't what the main idea or all the supporting sentence were really about.

 

[Kleanbore]

"Killing" wasn't the point of my post.

Oh, I see. What were the comments on killing about?

The main idea of my post was to point out that, IMHO, handgun calibers don't make much of a difference.

We agree on that.

 

[FlSwampRat]

There's probably a lot of truth to that, but don't forget about the people that make a living writing about such matters.

Dang it! Whyfore we doing this fer free?