Handgun stopping power

[44 AMP]

This was a 120# lion that had been struck twice by .45 ACP hollow point rounds and still had an incredible amount of fight left in him.

SO?? That kind of thing does happen. I watched a guy shoot a 20lb skunk THREE times with 158gr .357 Magnum (from a carbine!!) without stopping it. The shooter, apparently having lost confidence in either his gun, or himself, then asked me to dispatch the skunk. I did, with one shot from the .45 Colt I was wearing at the time. One .45 through the head was much more effective than THREE .357s through the gut. (yes, he was that bad a shot) Its not as much WHAT you hit them with, as it is WHERE you hit them.

So, if your assailant is a 215# guy, don't count on that "one-stop shot" ending the encounter!

Don't count on ONE shot, whether from a .22 or a 12ga.
You can find cases where everything has worked, and cases where everything has failed.


Now, on to those oft repeated sayings...

The .223 was developed for killing men in war,

Not exactly.

Actually it was developed from the .222, to wound, not kill.

Closer, but still not quite there...

this theory (military wants small arms to wound, not kill) has been tossed around for years, but I've never seen anything official that confirms it.

The 5.56mm (.223 Remington) was developed to meet certain specific requirements for bullet weight and velocity at a certain distance that the .222 Rem could not quite meet, AND do so while fitting in the AR-15 rifle. The already existing .222 Rem Mag could meet those requirements, but was a teeny bit too long to work in the AR rifle. Killing and wounding ability were not part of the specs.

And, you won't find anything "official" about the military desiring to wound, rather than kill. It's a BS story, made up as justification why it was ok to use the .22 cal AR rifle. Told to the gullible, and repeated endlessly in the half century since. The bean counters can show you the numbers, it is true that one wounded soldier takes 3 guys out of the fight (at least temporarily), but it isn't true that such a thing is a constant. It actually only applies to those forces who give aid to their wounded DURING the fight, and even then, the way we (and some others) do it, a wounded troop doesn't take anyone else out of the fight, except for the brief time his buddy(s) stay with him until medical help arrives. Medics and stretcher bearers aren't "in the fight" anyway.

The idea that the military actually sought out and adopted such a weapon as the best tool for the job is complete fantasy.

.......and statistically more people are killed with .22's than any other caliber.

We do hear this all the time. We never hear any actual numbers, or any names of people who have those numbers. Might be true, after all, our military has been using a .22 caliber as the main infantry rifle for over half a century now...

Statistically the flu kills more people than violence does.

Statistically, old age kills everything...if you're attacked by a 120lb mountain lion, or a 215lb thug with roid rage issues, you can choose to sneeze on them, or wait for them to die of old age, but I prefer different options.

Although there are certainly plenty of people who have been killed with a single handgun wound, historically 80-85% of handgun gunshot wound victims have survived.

I've heard this one a lot, as well, and it always makes me wonder...just where these numbers exist as data, and what the parameters are...

Historically means throughout all time and there are so many different factors involved, a big one being the degree of medical aid available and another the amount of time between the shooting and any aid, and an even bigger one being the actual physical damage caused by the shot, that I just don't see how a blanket statement like 85% survive can be accurate.

And that leaves out the possibility of skewed analysis of the data, which is also always a possibility. If you've got 100 cases, and 85 of them were people shot in the foot (and lived), and 15 were shot in the head (and died), that data does support a claim of 85% "survivable", but how close to reality do you think it actually is??

back in the days of the old west, surviving a gunshot was always a 50/50 thing. You lived, or you didn't. Why would anyone think differently today?

 

[CDW4ME]

I shot a deer with Delta Elite 10mm, 155 XTP, bullet broke front leg bone, 1 1/4'' hole in shoulder, made quarter size hole in heart and exited.
The deer still ran 40 yards on 3 legs with a hole through its heart; this was not a big buck, just a small deer.
If the deer had been armed it could have used those remaining seconds to shoot back rather than run.

I've seen broadheads inflict much greater damage (1 1/4'' diameter hole all the way through the deer including both lungs) and the deer still run 50 yards or so.

So when I see people advocate 380 and 32 acp to defend their life, rationalizing it with statistics, shot placement, ... I'm like
A human on drugs (meth) or simply psychotic could take fatal wounds but still be capable of inflicting lethal damage, up to 10 seconds of voluntary action after the lungs are completely perforated based on my experience with deer.

 

[Onward Allusion]

I've said this before. Humans are fragile. Compared to wild animals from a physical standpoint, it is amazing that we're the current apex predator.

Second, being able to kill the attacker isn't the same as being able to end the attack. It takes time to die from a gunshot unless it's a CNS shot. Zombie movies are a good example.

 

[T. O'Heir]

"...Handgun stopping power..." No such thing. No such thing as a 100% guaranteed one shot stop either. Physics doesn't allow it.
Mountain lions and every other wild creature, spend their entire lives just staying alive. It's their job.
"...shot in the head..." There are stats that show head shots are more survivable than torso shots. Just don't ask me where those stats are. Some book I read long before there was an internet.
"...223 was developed for killing men in war..." Nope. It was never intended to be a battle rifle cartridge. Strictly an air crew survival rifle cartridge. Until McNamara decided the M-16 was sexy and jammed it down everybody's, the U.S. Army included, throats. Shortly after the U.S. jammed the .308 down the throats of the rest of NATO. Nobody wanted either cartridge.

 

[pblanc]

The 80-85% survival rate for handgun gunshot wounds comes from hospital emergency department and trauma center data collected over many years. This general figure has been presented many times in articles published in multiple medical journals. As for a 50% survival rate for gunshot wounds in the old west, medical care has changed a lot since then. Back then, gut shot individuals almost always died. Now the great majority survive with reasonably prompt medical care.

This figure derives from gunshot wounds overall, not stratified for location of wound or any other factor. I rather suspect that as multiple simultaneous gun shot wounds become more common, that the overall survival rate might decline somewhat. It may already have done so, since the figure I quoted is based on historical data.

There are mechanisms other than penetrating injuries to the upper CNS that can result in immediate incapacitation. A non-perforating head wound that does not penetrate the skull can easily result in unconsciousness. This might be considered by some a CNS hit, but not in the way most people think of.

For an assailant armed with a hand weapon, a shot that disrupts the musculoskelatal structure of the dominant arm and hand, or disrupts the nerve supply to it, can result in immediate effective incapacitation.

Injuries to the face which do not involve the CNS may damage the eyes or flood them with blood causing at least temporary blindness and immediate incapacitation.

Gunshot wounds to the upper torso or neck, or lower head my result in airway compromise or flooding of the airway with blood, which will result in very rapid incapacitation in most individuals.

 

[44 AMP]

The 80-85% survival rate for handgun gunshot wounds comes from hospital emergency department and trauma center data collected over many years.

Ok, this explains a lot, and at the same time, shoots the claim (as written) in the ass.

The claim is stated as 80-85% of handgun gunshot wounds are survivable. based on ER and trauma center data, right?

Ok, its already skewed. Because its not 80-85% of all the people shot with handguns that make it, its 80-85% of the people shot with handguns who are alive when they get to the ER /Trauma center that make it.

I see a large difference there.

Not too long ago, there was a poor fellow, some kind of athlete if I remember right, died from a shot in the leg (and I think it was a .22 but don't recall clearly). Nicked the femoral artery, and he bled to death before he got to the hospital. He, and everyone shot by a handgun who was DRT or DOA, doesn't get counted in that 80-85% number. All those who expire before getting to the ER don't go to the ER, they go to the morgue, and I doubt they show up in ER statistics, since they never went there in the first place.

In the old west, infection killed, more often it appears than the bullet wound itself. The .41RF (most often the derringer) was a very feared weapon, because the outside lubricated bullet had about enough power to go halfway through a man. It was almost a certain killer, taking on the average, about two weeks or so...

I still figure every gunshot wound is a 50/50 thing. You live, or you don't. Other factors might change the odds of being on one side or the other, but everyone is always on one side of that coin, or the other, when they get shot.

 

[Road_Clam]

Very interesting statistics brought into light from the above linked Youtube vid. Years ago my thinking for a home defense weapon was my Glock G22 with a rail flashlight. After much research, accessing the layout of my ranch style home, and the fact we may have to confront a threat with sleeping persons in rooms , my wife and I made the decisions to have 2 tactical 12ga Mossberg 930's as defense weapons. High probability of a incapacitating hit in a highly stressed situation, and missed shots have a high probability of NOT passing through residential spec walls and striking unintended persons.

 

[Dano4734]

Life or death situation my thinking is unload everything you have and forget stopping power. Dump ten rounds and maybe just maybe. I would rather face excessive force and be alive than dead

 

[JohnKSa]

The claim is stated as 80-85% of handgun gunshot wounds are survivable. based on ER and trauma center data, right?

Ok, its already skewed. Because its not 80-85% of all the people shot with handguns that make it, its 80-85% of the people shot with handguns who are alive when they get to the ER /Trauma center that make it.

I do not see any reason to give credence to the idea that survival rates from firearm injuries are skewed by hospitals keeping two sets of books on firearm injuries based on whether or not the patient arrives dead or dies onsite.

But I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. Is there actually any credible evidence that hospitals actually do keep their statistics in that fashion?

I still figure every gunshot wound is a 50/50 thing. You live, or you don't.

If you throw a pole with two flat ends into the air, there are only two options for how it will end up. It can end up lying on its side, or it could land balanced on one of the two ends. It lies flat or stands up--only two options. But one of those options is TREMENDOUSLY more likely than the other. The idea that the odds of an outcome are 50/50 because there are only two options is not at all based on fact.

 

[Troy800]

What? You mean the BG won't fly back three feet and hit the wall when I shoot him with my .45. Say it ain't so

 

[Dano4734]

It has to be true my brother, i saw it in every movie

 

[44 AMP]

historically 80-85% of handgun gunshot wound victims have survived.

Of course, I'm probably taking this too far, and too much at face value, but its the complete blanket declarative statement that I have an issue with.

since the invention of "hand gonnes" (in the early 1500s??) 80-85% of all the people shot with them all over the world have survived?. That's what this says to me, and I find it difficult to believe as a valid fact.
Had the statemen included such vital modifiers as "with access to modern medicine and modern transportation" I'd have a lot less issues with it.

For instance, if one were shot in a non-immediately fatal manner, say 40 miles from a hospital, and the fastest means of reaching medical care, or having it reach you, was a horse, I'd say your odds were much poorer than with modern medivac chopper. 40 miles (just for a number) of rainforest jungle is different than 40 miles in the LA basin...and so on..

As to hospitals keeping two different sets of books, I didn't mean to imply that, I don't think they do. My point was that people who die before they get to the hospital don't go on the hospitals books

IF the statement was "in recent decades, in civilized areas, 80-85% of handgun gunshot wound victims who did not receive immediately fatal wounds, have survived. " I'd have a lot fewer issues with that. But that wasn't what was said. So the OCD imp on my shoulder says, "its not right, don't let it go.."

Someone mentioned how animals are tougher than people. I don't think they are. I think they can be as individual as people are, but one thing does set us apart. Generally speaking, animals don't know what it means when they get shot. Modern people, generally do. And our minds have a powerful effect on our bodies. And it can range from the berserker who just won't stop until physically unable to move to the guy who's subconscious shuts him down because it knows what's expected when you get shot, having been trained for decades by movies and tv, to the guy who simply decides to stop consciously, so he won't get shot or shot, again.

We're all different. So are the animals. There is an old saying ("African") that "one day, you meet a lion on the trail, and he runs away. The next day, you meet his brother, and the village wonders why you do not come home for supper..."

The point here is that animals reactions can be as individual and different as human ones are.

 

[JohnKSa]

...since the invention of "hand gonnes" (in the early 1500s??) 80-85% of all the people shot with them all over the world have survived?. That's what this says to me, and I find it difficult to believe as a valid fact.

That's because it's not a valid fact as far as we know.

It is very reasonable to assume that the lethality of handguns has changed since they were invented several hundred years ago and that the survivability rate of handgun injuries differs signficantly throughout the world.

Although the qualifiers are not explicitly stated, it is generally understood that the assertion is not meant to cover the entire half-millennium history of handguns nor to apply to every possible region of the world. Taken in context it applies to modern times and to areas where modern medical facilities are available.

My point was that people who die before they get to the hospital don't go on the hospitals books.

If they aren't transported to the hospital, I could see why that would be true, but if they are transported to the hospital to be declared dead, why would the hospital not keep a record of that fact and the circumstances of the injury that resulted in the death? Again, I'm willing to be proven wrong--I've just never heard of this idea that hospitals don't keep any records on DOA patients and I can't imagine why it would be true.

 

[shurshot]

1stmar has it right... shot placement is THE telling factor. Many trappers and big cat hunters in the past have used .22 LR / head shots, so as to save the hide. Of course, a cat in a tree held at bay by dogs, or in a leghold trap may offer a better opportunity for a leisurely taken head shot. Quite a different thing to have one in front of you on a hiking trail, 5 yards away, snarling and ready to pounce. Talk about pucker factor!!!
Brain, spine or heart will usually result in immediate incapacitation if not death. That being said, I have seen firsthand big whitetail deer, heart shot with high power rifles (.308, .270, .243), that still traveled nearly 100 yards on pure adrenaline... dead on their feet. Others, hit in the shoulder or boiler room (heart / lung area), have dropped in their tracks. Shot placement is more important than caliber. Poachers in the past preferred accurate .22 rifles outfitted with scopes and flashlights / lanterns for good reason... they work.

 

[OhioGuy]

A great article concerning handgun stopping power or rather, the lack thereof against a determined assailant.

https://www.policeone.com/police-he...ne-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

WOW.......

You gotta be pretty pissed to take 14 rounds and keep going...

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Not sure who said it, but, a pistol is just the starter gun for the fat man's race to his rifle."

I said it, conceptually, but I didn't actually say that...

My initial quote was...


My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...

The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."

Said that back in 2009. One of the guys here has used it as part of his signature line since then.

 

[Road_Clam]

Of course, a cat in a tree held at bay by dogs, or in a leghold trap may offer a better opportunity for a leisurely taken head shot. Quite a different thing to have one in front of you on a hiking trail, 5 yards away, snarling and ready to pounce. Talk about pucker factor!!!

When I attended a home defense instructional class the instructor had volunteers immerse their hands in a bucket of ice water for 30 seconds then attempt a concealed holstered weapon deployment and fire, and perform a mag change. It proved to be quite difficult. This accurately simulates your body's reaction to a highly stressed , adrenalin filled situation. One should NOT assume you're good enough of a marksman to guarantee a single lethal shot. One should assume it make take several shot's placed in "center mass" to completely cease a deadly threat.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Well, if nothing else, that Elfritz video makes me more confident in my choice of carrying a .38 Special.

 

[Capt Rick Hiott]

Bla, Bla, Bla,,,,once again,,,shot PLACEMENT!

Plain and simple.

 

[shurshot]

Road Clam wrote "One should NOT assume you're good enough of a marksman to guarantee a single lethal shot. One should assume it make take several shot's placed in "center mass" to completely cease a deadly threat."
I agree, but with proper SHOT PLACEMENT... 2 center mass, one in the head (according to how I was trained in the failure drill. We didn't play in ice water, but trained in the cold and snow). Spray and pray usually doesn't work out well except in Hollywood. Shot placement is everything. If you can't "Accurately" place them center mass, you may have a serious problem if a big cat wants to lunge at you, or if a bad guy is attacking you.