An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

[GreyGeek]

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

I always had a slight problem with the methodology of Marshall and Sanow's work. For consistency purposes, they ONLY included hits to the torso and ONLY included cases where the person was hit with just a single round. Multiple hits screwed up their data, so they excluded them. This led to an unrealistically high stopping power percentage, because it factored out many of the cases where a person didn't stop! I wanted to look at hits anywhere on the body and get a realistic idea of actual stopping power, no matter how many hits it took to get it. So I started collecting data.
...
I think the most interesting statistic is the percentage of people who stopped with one shot to the torso or head. There wasn't much variation between calibers.
...
All the common defensive calibers required around 2 rounds on average to incapacitate.
...
Another data piece that leads me to believe that the majority of commonly carried defensive rounds are similar in stopping power is the fact that all four have very similar failure rates.
...
Some people will look at this data and say "He's telling us all to carry .22s". That's not true.
...
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!
...
What matters even more than caliber is shot placement. Across all calibers, if you break down the incapacitations based on where the bullet hit you will see some useful information.

Head shots = 75% immediate incapacitation
Torso shots = 41% immediate incapacitation
Extremity shots (arms and legs) = 14% immediate incapacitation.

No matter which caliber you use, you have to hit something important in order to stop someone!

[bkoenig]

I've read that study before and I think it brings up some great points.  A more powerful round is always better, but any gun is better than no gun....assuming you can hit the target.

[GreyGeek]

any gun is better than no gun....assuming you can hit the target.

Very true.  In my CCW range qualification test I put 149 out of 150 rounds into the center of mass, which is rather a big target, especially under 7 yrds.   With the HP22A I can put 10 out of 10 rounds into a 3" bull.   While I can handle the Nano, the HP22A is more like jus pointing your finger and saying "bang!"

[springfield40]

I'd like to chime in on this one.  While it is usually true that most people stop being nasty after getting hit.  But there are some that still don't, and we don't get to pick which fight we might get.  Also, there isn't one person who will argue that shot placement is of the most importance above all other factors of the gun fight. 
Now with those two items pointed out I'd like to say this.  In a stressful situation your shooting accuracy is going to suffer a bit....maybe even a lot.  Your shot placement may not be optimal, and then the wound channel size is the next best thing.  I would choose the round that will create the largest leak, and that I can accurately handle. 

Frank

[GreyGeek]

Also, there isn't one person who will argue that shot placement is of the most importance above all other factors of the gun fight. 

Yes there is.    Me. 

By the way, you did notice that the data showed that a .22 round took an average of less than 2 rounds to stop a perp, didn't you?






Stress is overcome by practice.   When I was younger I owned a LOT of weapons of various kinds and could afford to shoot all of them.   I hunted a lot.  I shot a lot.   I became an instinctive shooter.   When I took my CCW range test I was nervous (besides the mild hand shake I've developed in my old age) and took a sight pictures for the first few shots.   I  later realized that I hadn't been using the sights at all for the majority of my shots.   I had automatically reverted to habit and shot instinctively.

While practicing with HP22A I found I could fire more quickly because I wasn't resighting the weapon after every shot because it has no recoil and the accuracy is very good.  At 7 yds every shot is in a circle with a 6" diameter, the size of a head.  But, I'd still shoot at the center of mass with 4 or 5 quick shots in under 2 seconds.

However, I have no intention of deliberately engaging someone if I can avoid it.   I have chosen to defend myself and my wife with my CC weapon.   That others choose not to defend themselves doesn't mean I have an obligation to defend them.   If a perp isn't shooting anyone and isn't pointing his gun at me I won't be pulling mine.   The stuff he steals can be replaced. That's what insurance is for.

Regardless of the weapon you choose, there is no guarantee that you would come out of an engagement unwounded, or even alive, so unless the perp is showing signs of the intent to kill, like asking witnesses to line up and drop to their knees facing away, it is in your best interests not to engage.   If the perp shoots at someone then that's another matter.  Just hope that you have at least 30 rounds ready to go.

[calebgh]

So somebody explain to me why the .32 cal bullet is so effective here?

C

[springfield40]

These are some very interesting stats that you have shown here.  But do they account for a few other factors?  But first, lets make something very clear here.  I am a desk jockey expert.  Meaning I do a lot of reading, and make assumptions based on that.  So take my argument accordingly.  I'm in this for the discussion.   

1) Is the perp aware of the hit?  Yes it happens I guess from what I have read in some accounts. 
2) The toughness factor of the perp - There are some that will lay down at the sight of the gun.  Some will become more determined to kill you because of it.
3) Shot placement - head, body, extremity...

These are just some of the factors that change outcomes of a gun fight.  Also I think you missed my point before.  I do not doubt the lethality of the .22.  I well placed shot of any caliber will eventually kill or stop a perp, and the .22 has shown to be very capable.  And I believe the above factors all play a very good part of all of this.  That is why I want something to create the largest wound channel as possible to possibly compensate for poor shot placement due to struggle, or what ever factor may play into the equation.  Again, I am no expert, and I do not have any real world experience to fall back on.  Only that I have read all of the same shot/fight data that most all of us have read into at some point and time. Also I base my decision making on hunting experience.  I have seen many game animals simply run off and die much later after being shot by the .22. Also have seen larger animals fall dead in their tracks from the same.  But seldom have I seen game animals respond the same when hit by larger calibers.  Most from my observations is because of the "impact" of a larger slug causing a physical impact on the animals body.  I can only assume the same about a perp. some will have a huge desire to win or survive the fight.  Some will quit at the sight of the gun.  Just food for discussion.

Frank

[GreyGeek]

So somebody explain to me why the .32 cal bullet is so effective here?

As the author of the article explains, there are not enough data points on the .32 caliber to trust the results for it.

[springfield40]

Greygeek, thanks for posting this up.  This is a good conversation.
When it comes to these kinds of stats, it is easy to fall off the course when other factors are considered.  I don't know all of what was considered in these statistics, but they are very interesting to ponder over.   

Frank

[Gumby]

As GreyGeek has noted... nothing substitutes for accurate application of deadly force.    As Colt proved, "Equalizers" come in many calibers.  I'm also curious how bullet weight influences ability to incapacitate (I'm more accurate with 147gr 9MM compared to the light stuff, both first shot and follows).   Plus... time to take Grey's hint and purchase the PMR-30?

[springfield40]

I am of the influence of two schools of thought. 
1)  The big heavy bullet with a large frontal mass that hits like a truck.  i.e. the .45.
2) The hyper velocity round that creates a huge wound channel like the .357.
Both of these rounds seem to have a great deal of cred as fight stoppers. 
But I also digress back to shot placement, shot placement, shot placement.  If a shooter can manage a hit every time into the computer room, a good .22 will get the job done just fine.  But anywhere else, I am not convinced the effects will be quick enough.

Frank

[GreyGeek]

Frank, "schools of thought" don't replace facts, and one size doesn't fit all.

A lot of people, my wife included, could not handle the recoil of a gun that shoots bullets that "hit like a truck",  much less my 9mm Nano.   And, hand guns do not deliver "hyper-velocity" rounds.  The .357 you mention has a WIDE variation in muzzle velocity and energy, ranging from 294 ft-lbs at 990 ft/sec to 750 ft-lbs at 1650 ft/sec.   The .45 ACP varies from 244 ft-lbs at 750 ft/sec  to 616 ft-lbs at 1225 ft/sec.   
http://www.ballistics101.com/357_magnum.php
http://www.ballistics101.com/45_acp.php

A .22LR leaves  a 3" barrel at 910 ft/sec, which gives it 74 ft-lbs of energy.  A solid point round nose will penetrate farther than a hollow point.   it is severely disabling and/or lethal.  Here are a just a few of countless examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(San_Diego)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt

None of these rounds would deliver "knock down" power because hand guns do  not knock people down UNLESS they are hit in the brain, brain stem or spine.  Even heart shots with any of these rounds can result in the person remaining conscience for 15 seconds to a minute or more, depending on the rate of blood loss.   A lot of people appear to  be "knocked down" because they think that if they are hit by a bullet from a handgun they have to fall down.   (Too many movies?  Too many people being "blown away" by hits from a handgun round?)    On the other hand, visual  proof of the failure of handguns to "knock down" people is shown on many YouTube videos.  In an adrenaline rush many people never realize they've been shot,  and certainly not knocked down.

The data in the original post shows very clearly that the average number of .22 bullets needed to "knock down" averages less than two.

If adrenaline exciting keeps someone from shooting a .22 accurately it will keep someone from shooting a heavier caliber accurately as well, but someone shooting a .22 pistol won't have to contend with the recoil that would require they re-sight the weapon for a second shot.   My wife couldn't get two shots off in under 5 seconds and stay on  target.   She was able to get 10 shots off in 5 seconds with the HP22A, and fairly accurately as well at 5 yards.   And, she  can charge the slide on the .22, clear the old mag and insert a new one, things she wasn't able to do with the Nano.

I can guarantee two things:   NO ONE is going to look at the muzzle of the HP22A and say, "Oh, that's just a .22.  It won't hurt me, just make me mad.", and NO ONE will want to be shot by it.

[springfield40]

Okay, maybe I haven't been successful in stating my point here.  I never said that the .22 was not lethal.  Your research shows that to be true as well, and there is others out there that show many people die from the .22.  I do not have any issue with someone who chooses to use the .22 either.  If that is what they are able to use effectively then that is the round they should use.  I would much rather have my wife or love one putting .22's into a bad guys boiler room than having nothing at all. 
I do keep saying SHOT PLACMENT is the #1 thing here and if a person can't consistently shoot a larger round, then go smaller until you can accurately shoot consistently. 
My only contention is of the other data out there that may say otherwise about smaller rounds.   I also add my own experience with hunting wild animals (that usually have a very high desire to escape, or live another day) don't always behave as expected from being shot with any given round.  Couple that with the many carcasses  I have cleaned that show the effects of the many different rounds I have used.  My observations have been that many die slower, and often seem unaffected longer than those hit by larger, or much faster rounds.  Therefore I made the point that an attacker may not become "compliant" as soon as you may want.  An yes I did notice your data says otherwise, don't confuse me with the facts.   
I have never ascribed to the notion of "knock down power" of any round, and as you said that is Hollyweird's view of a gun fight and I agree.  But still contend that a larger frontal mass projectile appear to have a more noticeable effect of hitting the animal.  Often with many acting as if being punched at the entrance sight of the round.  I can only assume that effect will also happen on the human body.  I think you agree with me that there are many shootings that happen that good guy and bad, are unaware of being shot until things start to calm down.  That is why I also adhere to the notion of a larger projectile hitting a assailant rather than a smaller one cutting through an assailant with less blunt force.   
* You are also correct in saying that a bud guy will not look down the barrel of a hand gun and asses the caliber of choice.  The affect will most likely be "OH S**T!!!"


Frank

[GreyGeek]

Here is a physician talking about gunshot injuries.
"Only one  out of seven shot with a handgun die.  Handguns are not as deadly as we think they are."  I'm sort of glad for that because I don't want to kill anyone.  Just stop them from doing what they intend to do.

He also says  that the bigger the diameter the more damage, as you contend and I do not dispute.  But, he also points out that the expanding bullet slows down and does not penetrate.  See at 17 minutes 10 seconds.

[springfield40]

I have seen this video before.  I was concerned with the subject you mentioned too because I think he said that it was a .40 cal round that fell short of the heart after passing through the sternum.  That is the round I use.     I also agree that any hand gun that is good for carry is a pathetic stopper.  I have heard it said that "a hand gun is only used to fight to get a real gun."  This is for the most part true.  Again I really enjoyed the results you posted up, and I don't want to keep arguing about a subject I only know enough about to get myself in trouble.  Also I do not want to come across as a know it all.  Trust me I am not, and I am aware of that too.   
Thanks again for posting up, for allowing me to pontificate entirely to much.

Frank

[GreyGeek]

Also I do not want to come across as a know it all. 

Neither do I. 

I hope you don't think I was arguing.  My intent was an exchange of views precisely because there is a LOT I don't know, and a lot of disagreement about the things I do know.

Having investigated homicides for various clientele,  I don't rely on a hand gun for home defense.  I have a shotgun for that, and my wife knows how to point and shoot that as well.   If a slug or double aught buck won't cause them to stop ....

[springfield40]

Great!  That is exactly what I was hoping was happening here.  I enjoyed the conversation, and the exchange of information and thought.  Again, thanks for posting such a great topic.  It's certainly a controversial one for sure.  And I know I am not the brain trust to solve it either...

Frank