An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

[Guest goomba]

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

By Greg Ellifritz

I've been interested in firearm stopping power for a very long time. I remember reading Handguns magazine back in the late 1980s when Evan Marshall was writing articles about his stopping power studies. When Marshall's first book came out in 1992, I ordered it immediately, despite the fact that I was a college student and really couldn't afford its $39 price tag. Over the years I bought all of the rest of Marshall's books as well as anything else I could find on the subject. I even have a first edition of Gunshot Injuries by Louis Lagarde published in 1915.

Every source I read has different recommendations. Some say Marshall's data is genius. Some say it is statistically impossible. Some like big heavy bullets. Some like lighter, faster bullets. There isn't any consensus. The more I read, the more confused I get.

One thing I remember reading that made a lot of sense to me was an article by Massad Ayoob. He came out with his own stopping power data around the time Marshall published Handgun Stopping Power. In the article, Ayoob took his critics to task. He suggested that if people didn't believe his data, they should collect their own and do their own analysis. That made sense to me. So that's just what I did. 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 lead 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.

Over a 10-year period, I kept track of stopping power results from every shooting I could find. I talked to the participants of gunfights, read police reports, attended autopsies, and scoured the newspapers, magazines, and Internet for any reliable accounts of what happened to the human body when it was shot.

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

[Oh Shoot]

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/59607-different-take-stopping-power.html

[ls3_kid]

"Simpson's did it! Simpson's did it!" (For those of you that watch south park). However I did not see the original post of this article so this is new to me. Only thing I wish he would of done different when collecting the data is find (just as an example) 1000 people shot with each caliber and randomly select 200, 300, 400, or 500 of the incidents to give a more "fair" representation of each caliber. A few things just seem skewed but what do I know?

[Jonnin]

Its very skewed in many ways, much of it simply the lack of complete data for the author to use.

I drew 2 conflicting conclusions from this thing:

1) small calibers worked very, very well; the 380 and 22 family made many major calibers look poor. I can conclude that a mousegun is enough to do quite well in a situation and that "physics"** do not improve effectiveness.

2) rifles and shotguns, which have a LOT more physics than handguns, show that "physics" actually do improve effectiveness.

From here, I cannot really proceed to make any use of the paper.

***physics is the science of physics from which the poorly defined terms that are used, such as stopping power, are created. "More physics" then just means a larger momentum, energy, or other measurable value of the round in question.

[1gewehr]

I took away the fact that you have two distinct types of 'stops':

1) After being shot once, the person simply gives up. This is regardless of caliber.

2) For a determined attacker that doesn't fit into category '1', larger or more powerful is better.

A third fact is that he said that most of the 9mm shootings used ball ammo. If you carry or use 9mm, get a quality hollowpoint cartridge for carry use!

[Kevo]

"2 in the chest, 1 in the head" = stopping power:)Thanks for the good read!

[Guest Roadkill Bill]

I guess I'm just too hard headed. I can't seem to shake the idea that a bigger bullet, that makes a bigger hole, with more shock to the system, a larger wound cavity, and more bleeding does a better job. Sure, bullet placement is always the key, but between hitting a BG in the chest with a .45 ACP just seems better to me than a .22. (And a sharp stick out preforms a .25! )

[Wheelgunner]

I commend Mr. Ellifritz for taking the initiative and conducting his study to answer his own questions. Yet the conclusions he draws from his study, while sound in the context of the data he used, don't pass the common sense test. If I stand two poor b@stards side by side and shoot them both in precisely the same point in their chest, one with a .25 ACP and the other with a .500 S&W Magnum, I promise you there would be a clear and discernible difference in the effect. Ditto with .25 vs. .45, or .25 vs. .357 Magnum, etc. Suffice to say that the .25 would not seem too impressive anymore.

I suspect that one of the many reasons for the Ellifritz study's strange and counterfactual statistical results is the influence of illegal drugs on the physical response of criminals shot in many of the cases he used as data. I did not see any mention in the article of this variable despite the fact that Ellifritz himself states that "Every shot in this study took place during a military battle or an altercation with a criminal." In other words, the entire study is skewed by a critical variable that Ellifritz overlooked: drugs.

Elsewhere Ellifritz makes some good points -- that often people who are shot just once stop fighting, and that a weapon's rate of fire is often neglected in discussions of "stopping power." Still, I hope that no members here mistake his study for a truly scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of different calibers. According to Ellifritz's wild statistics a .22 round is a more effective single-shot-incapacitator that a .44 Magnum round. If that were true wouldn't most hog hunters choose a .22 over a .44 Magnum?

The last thing I'll point out is that Ellifritz says, in effect, that a "psychological stop" is "adequate" for him when choosing a defensive handgun caliber. I'm happy for him. But personally, I don't carry a handgun to defend myself from the guy who's all bark and no bite. I am crazy enough to carry in preparation for the ULTIMATE CRIMINAL -- someone wearing more than a tank top, with a car door between us, who will not be stopped by a fleshwound and who is, for whatever reason, determined to kill or gravely wound me or a loved one. (I know, what a super-villain!) Psychological stop, really? Best case scenario, it works, and you then get to explain in court why you were justified firing your handgun when all that was required was to convince the guy to leave. I would never, ever, shoot someone to scare them; if I have to fire it will be to *end the threat* because I'm about to be killed. What he terms a "physical stop" is what I call the minimum threshold of effectiveness for my carry handgun. But to each his own, I guess.

[Jonnin]

I am going to disagree with the drug factor. I am sure its a player, but not so sure that its a major player or the most important one. IMHO, and this is entirely a series of guesswork, many factors were overlooked due to lack of data: 1) number of incidents -- for example 44 mag isnt a popular choice and had only a few data points, so few data points that the results from it are meaningless. 2) Noobilyness. 9mm had a lot of data points but uneducated gun owners often get a 9mm first; how many people ask this and are told time and time again to get a 9mm glock over and over? Talking about people that do not shoot much, but have a gun, and then used it (poorly). 3) As you noted already, drugs or adreneline or insanity or other factors that allow a thug to ignore pain or minor wounds. There are others but you get the point, there are too many variables. Note that the 22 and 380 had a decent fatality rating, better than the 9mm and 44 mag (again, due to problems in the data set most likely, but real data is not easily ignored: the 380 and 22 worked). I do not disagree with you for preparing to meet the ultimate criminal, and I always advise folks to carry the most power they can contol, conceal, and so on, so from the real world data its hard to say that any caliber is the best to use against your super thug. According to the real world data, that 22 is a pretty good choice. Its not legal to hog hunt with any 22 that I know of, so that comment is not helpful in the context. Again, I agree the data is flawed and do not recommend a .22, just saying that the question of "how do you pick your caliber for mr super-thug?" becomes a difficult one when the data points at the mouseguns and there is no evidence to support that a hand-cannon is any better...

[zapfbroad]

While I appreciate the analytical prowess of the author in summarizing 10yrs of media/reports data I think that it's subjective thus moot. The rest of the people shot with 22s ran off and weren't available for interview hah. If the 9mm users were taking the most shots of any caliber group then it's very possible that entire set of data is invalid because it's skewed by potentially incompetent shooters. If Old Dead Eye McMahon standing next to me can kill a squirrel at 100paces with a 22target pistol and I can't hit the broadside of a dumpster with a buckshot that says nothing whatsoever Objectively about the stopping power of the respective weapons, calibers, grain, etc. 'Stopping power or penetration effectiveness' involve a variety of Scientific variables that change as the conditions of the shooting arena itself changes. Just get the biggest caliber you can handle effectively for an extended duration to ensure you learn to shoot that weapon and feed correctly and optimally & that you can carry it comfortably otherwise it's as useful as the machete in my closet.

[daddyo]

Fatality rate and ability to stop the threat are not even the same thing. Not even close.

[Jonnin]

Fatality rate and ability to stop the threat are not even the same thing. Not even close.

Close enough. 100% of fatalities were stopped threats, so there is a connection between the two. They are clearly not the same thing, but to say they are not even close denys the direct relationship between fatal wounds and a fully stopped bad guy.

[LngRngShtr]

Close enough. 100% of fatalities were stopped threats, so there is a connection between the two. They are clearly not the same thing, but to say they are not even close denys the direct relationship between fatal wounds and a fully stopped bad guy.

fatality means they died,at some point .. stopping the threat means the defender usually didn't die there is the difference and I believe a fair distance between the two... what good does a "fatal gunshot" do if the attacker continues and kills the defender and those he/she is defending I agree he won't be attacking anyone else but I am sure if the defender was revived and asked

"would you rather have a "fatal" hit or a "stopping" hit ?"

They would probably have traded the fatal hit for a stopping hit that was also fatal,..

I would always go for a stopping hit and yes I believe bigger and more are better when it comes to stopping aggression, as in want it stopped dead NOW

John

[daddyo]

Close enough. 100% of fatalities were stopped threats, so there is a connection between the two. They are clearly not the same thing, but to say they are not even close denys the direct relationship between fatal wounds and a fully stopped bad guy.

You can have one without the other, so I stand by my statement that they are not even close.

[Jonnin]

Fair enough, but there is some crossover between the two, as well. I totally agree with the bigger is better, but if one looks at the data alone, there is a solid case for the smaller guns. Since we have no details on where people got hit by what sort of marksman under what conditions using whatever type of ammo and so on, the whole thing is guesswork. I honestly think, and always will, that if you had 2 bullets that followed the exact same path into the exact same body, the bigger momentum round would do damage greater than or equal to the smaller one. That sort of study is simly not possible to do, though.

[Guest JMB]

Interesting read. The one thing I took from this is regardless of caliber you'll need to land a double tap to stop the threat.

Argues for finding the largest SD round each individual can handle well enough to rapidly land a second effective shot under pressure.

[TGO David]

There are some... interesting... beliefs in this thread.

My views on "stopping power" are pretty well documented in these forums, but the high points:

1. Stopping power in handguns is a myth.

1a. If we had a choice, we'd all carry rifles or carbines.

1b. We don't have that option so we carry handguns and make do.

2. Bigger translating into better is a study in diminishing returns.

2a. If given the choice between more or bigger, I'll take more almost every time (within reason).

3. Shot placement = real stopping power. Location, location, location.

4. Always shoot to eliminate the threat.

4a. If elimination means fatality, so be it. I won't start the fight but I intend to survive it.

[Guest Victor9er]

There are some... interesting... beliefs in this thread.

My views on "stopping power" are pretty well documented in these forums, but the high points:

1. Stopping power in handguns is a myth.

1a. If we had a choice, we'd all carry rifles or carbines.

1b. We don't have that option so we carry handguns and make do.

2. Bigger translating into better is a study in diminishing returns.

2a. If given the choice between more or bigger, I'll take more almost every time (within reason).

3. Shot placement = real stopping power. Location, location, location.

4. Always shoot to eliminate the threat.

4a. If elimination means fatality, so be it. I won't start the fight but I intend to survive it.

I'd have to agree with everything you say. But I still have a couple of questions for you or anyone else here, and I hope this is enough on topic to be placed here....

First, concerning 2a - "If given the choice between more or bigger, I'll take more almost every time (within reason)."

What if shot count were equal? Or negligable. For example, say you have a choice between a compact 9mm with a 15 round capacity (or even a full size 9mm with a 17 shot capacity) and a .40 caliber full size also with a 15 round capacity? Not factoring in concealment into the equation, which would you prefer?

Second, I notice a lot of people like to carry two different sized calibers for different seasons. Not trying to argue the merrits of this, but from what I can tell the preferred rotation seems to be a lighter round for summer/light clothing and a heavier round for winter/heavy clothing. The thought being that you need a bigger round to get through the thicker clothing. Here's my question...

From what I've read the lighter round, say 9mm, tends to over penetrate while the "slower heavier" round like the .45 creates a larger entry wound and penetrates less. Therefore, wouldn't it stand to reason that the smaller, faster round would be better suited for winter instead? Wouldn't you NEED for your round to penetrate more in order to cut through the thicker winter clothing? It seems like the heavier round would be better suited for summer for the same reason, less clothing = less layers so you wouldn't want to over-penetrate your target, right?

Or do I just have my physics all mixed up? LOL

[Guest nicemac]

1. Stopping power in handguns is a myth.

There are a lot of people in the cemetery that would disagree with this statement…

[TGO David]

First, concerning 2a - "If given the choice between more or bigger, I'll take more almost every time (within reason)."

What if shot count were equal? Or negligable. For example, say you have a choice between a compact 9mm with a 15 round capacity (or even a full size 9mm with a 17 shot capacity) and a .40 caliber full size also with a 15 round capacity? Not factoring in concealment into the equation, which would you prefer?

Unfortunately this is rarely a reality. You can almost always gain a 50-100% increase in round count between a .45ACP and 9mm version of a like-model handgun. Strides have been made with magazine design that have reduced the gap somewhat, but you are still looking at anywhere from 3-6 rounds deficiency per mag if you go with the larger caliber. Sometimes even worse.

Will I sometimes indulge myself and carry a .45ACP despite this? Yep. Can't tell you why either. It's a guilty pleasure I guess. But I know deep inside that I'd be just as well served with the 9mm from a "stopping power" perspective and actually better served from the perspectives of round count, weight of the firearm and ammo, size of the firearm and manageability of the recoil and ability to deliver faster, more accurate follow-up shots.

The bottom line is that with modern defensive handgun cartridges, the disparity of potency between the various calibers is pretty minimal.

As one of my friends and instructors is fond of saying about handgun ammo: We want expansion. We need penetration.

So far as the ammo you're choosing does the job, is in a platform that you can physically manage without difficulty, and you are proficient with it... carry whatever floats your boat.

[TGO David]

There are a lot of people in the cemetery that would disagree with this statement…

I don't even know where to start with the absurdity of the parallel you are drawing. It hurts my head trying to figure out how you got from there to here.

There are probably more people in the nation's cemeteries who have died from automobile accidents than gunshot wounds. Does this imply that our best choice of weaponry is a Ford Taurus?

[Guest nicemac]

I don't even know where to start with the absurdity of the parallel you are drawing. It hurts my head trying to figure out how you got from there to here.

There are probably more people in the nation's cemeteries who have died from automobile accidents than gunshot wounds. Does this imply that our best choice of weaponry is a Ford Taurus?

David, what is absurd? You stated factually that handgun stopping power is a myth. Well there are a lot of people that have been shot by handguns that stopped, and many of them died because of a single (hand)gun shot. There were just two recent stories about women with .22 pistols that killed home invaders. So it clearly is not a myth. Bigfoot is a myth.

If you had stated something along the lines of handguns aren't nearly as effective at stopping a bad guy as long guns, you would have gotten no disagreement from me–or likely any one else either. It's true. But to say that it is myth that a handgun has stopping power is not true. I was simply making a point that those killed by a handgun would disagree with you that handguns have no stopping power.

Certainly did not expect the owner/ moderator to start whipping out words like absurd to reply to a comment that is not absurd at all. Well, no more absurd than the Ford Taurus comment is…

[LngRngShtr]

Fatal shots with a handgun back up your statement nicemac,

the immediacy of a shot from a handgun is the myth as it is not always immediate due to the fact that humans are fairly resistant to immediate incapacitation at the levels most handguns used for defense are capable of delivering.. though fatal shots put them in the ground,.. it doesn't always happen immediately or in .05 seconds after impacting..

It does you no good if the attacker dies after he deprives you or a loved one of their lives this is the issue with "stopping power"

What I want to see from any form of tool for defensive purposes is the ability to remove the attackers desire for willful violence or force to do harm to me,.. be it a stick,my hands,a handgun/rifle/shotgun or even I guess if the situation needs it a Ford Taurus I want the attack to end as soon as possible so the "good guys" stay above ground and if the attackers have to be buried,..it was their choice....

even 5 seconds is too long if your on the receiving end of anything unpleasant, and 1 minute might as well be an eternity..

John

P.S. posted while you were replying to TGO David..

Edited August 4, 2011 by LngRngShtr

[Guest nicemac]

Fatal shots with a handgun back up your statement nicemac,

the immediacy of a shot from a handgun is the myth as it is not always immediate due to the fact that humans are fairly resistant to immediate incapacitation at the levels most handguns used for defense are capable of delivering.. though fatal shots put them in the ground,.. it doesn't always happen immediately or in .05 seconds after impacting..

It does you no good if the attacker dies after he deprives you or a loved one of their lives this is the issue with "stopping power"

What I want to see from any form of tool for defensive purposes is the ability to remove the attackers desire for willful violence or force to do harm to me,.. be it a stick,my hands,a handgun/rifle/shotgun or even I guess if the situation needs it a Ford Taurus I want the attack to end as soon as possible so the "good guys" stay above ground and if the attackers have to be buried,..it was their choice....

even 5 seconds is too long if your on the receiving end of anything unpleasant, and 1 minute might as well be an eternity..

John

P.S. posted while you were replying to TGO David..

I agree with everything you state. In the actual article being discussed, a large percentage of the attacks were stopped merely by getting shot with any caliber weapon. The will to proceed was lost because of the risk/ injury. That is stopping power as well. And handguns are more than capable of it.

[Jonnin]

As a fan of anything I can stuff into a pocket, almost every gun I looked at this past year that came in .40 and 9mm both dropped 2 rounds (on the average) when going to the .40 platform. Examples are the cz rami, 8 vs 10 shots, or the beretta px SC was 10 vs 13, and so on, everything being the same except the caliber. Sounds like Dave would pick the 9s in this case. I agree with most of his list, however I still say 1) is a contradiction. If stopping power is a myth, why carry or prefer a rifle/carbine/shotgun? Either more physics is better, or it isnt. If the differences are minor (which I agree with), that does not make the concept a myth, it just means there is little difference in the subset of {9mm, 40, 357, 45, etc}. The term stopping power is horrible, but mass and velocity are real and have real effects -- how important that is between similar things is another story.