An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

[Jonnin]

By the way, I like the way this site ranks handguns for carry. Its sometimes a bit funny, but most of the time I agree with their "defense ranking" of a specific weapon. Genitron.com: Details for Kel-Tec PMR-30 .22 Magnum Pistol This link takes you to the kel tec 22 magnum pistol which has a 97% optimal ranking for a defense weapon, due to the insane capacity in a medium frame... what say you on more vs bigger in this case David, its an extreme example of course.

[Guest BungieCord]

The most expansive study I've come across on gunshot wounding, lethality, etc, is this one posted at the CDC. it covers 115,000 shooting incidents and their lethality numbers were quite a bit lower than this guy's. They peg overall survival at close to 80%, 84% if you were not shot in the head and 60% if you were.

...1. Stopping power in handguns is a myth....

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?

No, it means automobiles kill people, just like handguns. Dead = stopped, here's nothing mythical about that.

Edited August 4, 2011 by BungieCord

[JAB]

Not to put words in his keyboard but I think what TGO David was saying is that bullets fired from handguns do not generate enough energy to significantly contribute, in a direct manner, to incapacitation of an assailant through hydrostatic shock. I think that some folks are confusing what I would call 'stopping ability' - a more general term - with 'stopping power', which is a specific term meaning that a projectile is capable of generating enough physical damage via hydrostatic shock (aka hydraulic shock) to create trama that is separate and remote from both the permanent and temporary stretch cavities created by the projectile passing through tissue or the tissue directly crushed/torn/destroyed by the projectile as it passes through.

Yes, dead is stopped but that refers to what I am terming stopping ability, not stopping power - and there is a difference. The presence of a firearm scaring an assailant into crapping his pants, assuming the fetal position and crying for his mommy is also stopping ability but has nothing to do with the energy level of the round fired, i.e. stopping power. Handguns certainly have stopping ability. If we didn't believe that then I doubt any of us (including TGO David) would go through the trouble of carrying one. In fact, I have expressed in the other thread about this same article that I believe a .380 or even a .32 can have plenty of stopping ability in that they are capable of causing incapacitating wounds or death (although some debate just how 'capable') or even their mere presence might cause an assailant to change their mind. That doesn't mean they have stopping power.

Now, I don't know that I entirely agree with TGO David's assessment as I would say something like a full-size .44 Magnum or bigger probably is capable of generating at least low levels of true stopping power. With handguns in calibers commonly carried for self defense, however, there is certainly room for doubt. In fact, there is apparently still some debate even within the medical community as to whether or not significant hydrostatic shock effects exist with any small arm, handguns or long guns. This is despite long standing evidence in support of such a phenomenon, at least regarding rifles (see the link I will provide at the end of my post.)

The question here is whether or not such effects are present at any significant level with handgun wounds or is hydrostatic shock, as produced by handguns, truly just a myth. Until I started doing a little research earlier today I would have expressed the opinion that TGO David is right and that 'stopping power' in handguns - or at least in commonly carried SD calibers - is a myth. After having done some reading on the subject, however, now I am not so completely convinced.

If handguns really are capable of generating 'stopping power', at all, I would still agree with TGO David that the difference in true stopping power levels in handguns between a 9mm, .40 caliber or a .45 would likely be so insignificant as to be 'mythical'. Now, that doesn't mean that a bigger and/or faster bullet isn't capable of doing more direct, physical damage (although that won't always be the case - and that is where shot placement comes in) nor does it mean that, if the result of the increase in energy is deeper penetration (to a point) then there might not be a greater chance of incapacitation. That would be more of an indirect result, however (more energy pushes the bullet deeper so that greater penetration is the direct cause of incapacitation while more energy - by virtue of contributing to greater penetration - would be an indirect cause.)

Of course, I am no physicist nor am I am ballistic expert or medical doctor. However, I am pretty good at finding information written by people who are 'experts' (when I'm not too lazy to look.)

I was able to find this recent paper supporting the existence of remote wounding effects of hydrostatic shock (i.e. "stopping power"), which was published in Neurology, February 2011 - Volume 68 - Issue 2 - pp E596-E597. The link provided is to the abstract on the Cornell University Library website. While they argue that the idea of hydrostatic shock is not a myth, it seems to me that most of the research and evidence upon which they base their assertion relates more to rifles than to handguns. Still, the article is interesting to read and I plan to keep trying to find scholarly articles or papers which either directly support or deny the idea that such a phenomenon exists in handgun shootings. Click on the 'PDF only' link on the right to read the entire paper.

[1102.1642] History and evidence regarding hydrostatic shock

Edited August 5, 2011 by JAB

[JAB]

Here is a link to another article written by the same authors as the one at the link I posted, above.

Scientific Evidence for

[zenman]

TGO David, in regard to 2a, I took your statement to also include "more" = rounds fired under control and on target. I think that is why the 9mm stats show "more" number of hits compaired to other calibers.

[nightrunner]

TGO David, in regard to 2a, I took your statement to also include "more" = rounds fired under control and on target. I think that is why the 9mm stats show "more" number of hits compaired to other calibers.

Holy thread revival man!

[Guest Nikator]

My take on this topic is that accuracy is more important than power. I'd also rank magazine capacity above power for handgun rounds. I feel comfortable knowing any gun is effective. Sure, we all want to have a big .45 or a 10mm if the situation arose where our safety was threatened, but if all I had was a .22 it would still get the job done.

[Guest Lowbuster]

I think there is no magic bullet to do everything we want. For example say you are in tn and in summertime have to defend yourself with say a .45 jhp. It will probably stop with one shot it good placement. Now it's winter and same guy has on enough clothes coats etc for jhp to expand in coats before it hits body. Or you have to defend yourself from carjacker by shooting through door. Will the bullet fragment or expand in car door before hitting BG with heavy clothing? There is no single bullet out there to do it all in my opinion.

[Dave Nowlin]

Does it seem strange that the military went from .45 Long Colt to .38 special to .45 a.c.p. to 9mm to that new 5.something in a bottle necked case as supposedly superior handgun cartridges? The answer which seems overlooked here is any handgun cartridge beats being unarmed. Carry what you are comfortable and shoot well with. If tha is a .22 long rifle it is still a deterent to a criminal who were prefer not to be shot.

[Jonnin]

Over nearly 150 years, yea the military has changed its mind a few times and made a few mistakes (the weak .38 round was not too bright even for the times it was used). Also, the military does not really stress handguns as a major category of weapons. While it is useful to know what they are using and why, I would not choose my self defense weapon based off what the army uses. If I did that, I would have a massive brick of a pistol that would be difficult to conceal loaded up with ball ammo. The military should not be a role model when picking a CCW. The police also tend to use large guns, but at least they use pistols as a primary weapon. But the police use 6 or 7 calibers and some 50+ models of pistols across the USA. Good role models, but .... no consensus on the "best" weapon or caliber is to be found from looking at them. Which leads back to, as you said, carry what works for you.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Jonnin

[mikegideon]

I carried a box of 500, 230 grain bullets home with me last week. In one brief moment, I understood exactly why the military went with 9mm.

[Oh Shoot]

Does it seem strange that the military went from .45 Long Colt to .38 special to .45 a.c.p. to 9mm to....

Just to be precise, that was .38 Long Colt.

.38 Special was only minimally ever used by US military in some niche instances, mostly for airmen.

- OS

Edited May 18, 2012 by OhShoot

[mikegideon]

Just to be precise, that was .38 Long Colt.

.38 Special was only minimally ever used by US military in some niche instances, mostly for airmen.

- OS

Yeah. My dad carried a .38 some in Korea. He was a flight engineer on cargo planes and troup carriers.

[Jonnin]

Just to be precise, that was .38 Long Colt.

.38 Special was only minimally ever used by US military in some niche instances, mostly for airmen.

- OS

Doh, thats right, I had in mind that it was the "colt army" type pistols that fired 38 S&W which is why I said it was a bit weak.

[Ratfink]

Good read, I'm sure we all have our own preference on hangun caliber. But I know what I'm gonna carry.