Handgun stopping power

[jmr40]

Handguns are a lot more effective than most think. I don't for a second believe the old wives tale that a pistol is only for fighting your way to the rifle. In fact I'd say that any of the common handguns cartridges from 9mm on up are just as effective as rifle rounds. The key is hitting the target using the right bullet. A rifle makes it easier to vitals as range increases. At extreme close ranges it is easier with handguns.

Here is a study done to give some insight to handguns stopping bear attacks. They documented 37 cases where people were attacked by bear and used a handgun to defend themselves. Eight of these instances involved black bear, the rest grizzly. In 36 of the cases the attack was stopped. In some the person was still injured by the bear, but the gunshots either persuaded the bear to leave or killed it outright.

Guns used ranged from 9mm up to 454 Casul. The 44 magnum was most commonly used, but 9mm, 45 ACP, and 10mm combined for more successful stops than all others. The only failure was a 357 magnum where it is thought that all shots missed the bear.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...s-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/#axzz5Ucf4zGTb

I'

 

[USNRet93]

In fact I'd say that any of the common handguns cartridges from 9mm on up are just as effective as rifle rounds. The key is hitting the target using the right bullet. A rifle makes it easier to vitals as range increases. At extreme close ranges it is easier with handguns.

Good video about caliper and weapon type 'effectiveness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nycYxb-zNwc&t=519s

 

[jmr40]

Handguns are a lot more effective than most think. I don't for a second believe the old wives tale that a pistol is only for fighting your way to a rifle. In fact I'd say that any of the common handguns cartridges from 9mm on up are just as effective as rifle rounds. The key is hitting the target using the right bullet. A rifle makes it easier to hit vitals as range increases. At extreme close ranges it is easier with handguns.

Here is a study done to give some insight to handguns stopping bear attacks. They documented 37 cases where people were attacked by bear and used a handgun to defend themselves. Eight of these instances involved black bear, the rest grizzly. In 36 of the cases the attack was stopped. In some the person was still injured by the bear, but the gunshots either persuaded the bear to leave or killed it outright.

Guns used ranged from 9mm up to 454 Casul. The 44 magnum was most commonly used, but 9mm, 45 ACP, and 10mm combined for more successful stops than all others. The only failure was a 357 magnum where it is thought that all shots missed the bear.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...s-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/#axzz5Ucf4zGTb

I've never shot a human. But I've shot a lot of deer, black bear, and seen a lot of others shot. What happens is hard to predict. I've seen 100 lb deer with mush for lungs and a 2" exit hole run 150 yards. I've seen 500 lb elk do a belly flop and never twitch when hit with a 243.

Humans are no different. Some humans, or animals, have an incredible desire to live and simply won't die from the same wounds that would kill a normal person. If you happen to be attacked by one of those people, or animals, then it just ain't your day. Regardless of what you're shooting.

Read about this guy:

http://www.psywarrior.com/benavidez.html

During the Vietnam war he survived, and continued to fight for 6 hours between being shot the 1st time and arriving at a hospital. By the time he got to the hospital he had 37 gunshot and shrapnel wounds including a 7.62X39 bullet through one lung. In addition to 2 bayonet stab wounds, and a broken jaw from the butt of an AK 47. The 1st rescue helicopter he was in was shot down and he also survived the crash. His intestines were outside his abdomen. Yet he was carrying other wounded soldiers to the helicopters with all of these wounds.

 

[Road_Clam]

As I read all the stopping power "theory" I always revert back to what was taught to me by my defensive instructors. Many of you seem to have the mentality that if you are forced into a defensive life threatening situation you will automatically have the perfect mental and physical defensive weapon skills to efficiently cease the threat. The odds are you will NOT. You CANNOT truly prepare yourselves for a stressed and Adrenalin filled defensive firefight. 99% of us have not , and will not need to draw a weapon and fire in a life threatening defensive situation (not referring to wild animal encounters). Within one of my defensive classes , student stress and Adrenalin was created from unknown, random instructors yelling and making quick violent physical movements towards the students during non- firing exercises, and these instructors were VERY believable. It really got me as a typical untrained civilian, to realize the seriousness of this stressed situation. All's you can do is educate yourself, choose your preferred defensive weapon , and seek the best defensive training. Now your prepared as best you can be for the life threatening situation that hopefully never comes.

 

[shurshot]

Goods points Road clam. Never underestimate pucker factor.

 

[44 AMP]

Knew a guy, LEO, great shot, always on the pistol team that went to state and national competitions, often won.

He got into a gunfight with a bad guy. Both of them emptied their pistols, neither one hit the other. Range was 15 FEET!!!!!

As the LEO reloaded, the bad guy gave up. Later he said that he gave up because he hadn't been shot, yet, and didn't want to be. Said he figured it was better to go to jail without bullet holes in him than go where the bullet holes might send him...

This shooting was closer to the "High Noon" shoot out than is usual, both men facing each other, and one would think, "How can anybody miss at 15feet??" but BOTH MEN DID, every shot.

it's rare, but it does happen. BOTH the highly trained, expert shot and the untrained civilian (bad guy) were exactly equal in shooting ability that day. Neither one hit his opponent.

Not a one shot stop, not even a one HIT stop, but a successful stop, nonethe less. Purely a psychological stop. Where to you put those in your database??


A "psychological" stop on an animal happens, too. If the beast turns and wanders off, or runs away, shot or not, it is such a stop.

The OP was menaced by a large cat. He shot it with a handgun. Cat didn't drop DRT, and now he's asking about handgun stopping power.

Here is a study done to give some insight to handguns stopping bear attacks.

I read the linked article, interesting stuff, thanks! But I have to ask why you said this...

The 44 magnum was most commonly used, but 9mm, 45 ACP, and 10mm combined for more successful stops than all others.

What point are you trying to make saying this? I don't understand how or why adding up 3 different calibers number of stops matters in any way.

 

[Nanuk]

That was not the case in the states in which I practiced medicine, but the law may vary from state to state and things may have changed since I retired from practice. During my practice in multiple states, only MDs or DOs could declare patients dead. Even Registered Nurses could not.

I have been out of that business 25 years. Things change. I saw it in cases of hem-coperectomy, decapitation, GSW's to the head with a significant portion of the head missing, etc, not general trauma, and always with direct consultation of an MD. I also practiced wilderness medicine in hi angle SAR. You normally do not do CPR on someone who fell 300 feet 2 hours ago either.

 

[pblanc]

I have been out of that business 25 years. Things change. I saw it in cases of hem-coperectomy, decapitation, GSW's to the head with a significant portion of the head missing, etc, not general trauma, and always with direct consultation of an MD. I also practiced wilderness medicine in hi angle SAR. You normally do not do CPR on someone who fell 300 feet 2 hours ago either.

Yes, there are some situations in which an individual can be considered definitely dead and first responders are not obliged to initiate resuscitation efforts. Decapitation is certainly one such recognized traumatic event. But none of these would apply to fresh gunshot wounds, save perhaps an individual who had most of his head blown off with a shotgun.

Current management of penetrating trauma in the field has generally embraced a "scoop and scoot" philosophy in which prolonged stabilization in the field, apart from control of bleeding and maintenance of airway, is curtailed or abandoned in favor of rapid transit to the nearest facility capable of providing emergent surgical care.

 

[Cosmodragoon]

You missed my point, Cosmodragoon.
The thread subject is handgun stopping power.

Did you see my earlier post about what factors cause an attacker to stop? That's why I asked the question I did about "fast and light" versus "slow and heavy" (and to what extent) with respect to causing those events in humans.

Your post had said that "slow and heavy" was performing best in "breaking down and disabling", aka stopping, pigs.

 

[rodfac]

In fact I'd say that any of the common handguns cartridges from 9mm on up are just as effective as rifle rounds.

ONLY IF, and it's a BIG IF, the handgun rounds are administered to absolutely vital areas...pinpoint accuracy needed. And I'd add, the handgun's claim to fame is that it is much more likely to be available, given its ease of carry...Rod

 

[Cosmodragoon]

In fact I'd say that any of the common handguns cartridges from 9mm on up are just as effective as rifle rounds.

Indeed, the handgun is literally "handy". It can be easily carried or stowed in a convenient location. It can be easily manipulated and maneuvered in tight spaces. As rodfac said above, direct shots to particularly vital areas should be equivalent with rifles so long as there is enough power to get through to them. I'd say that's generally true with 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 magnum and many other modern cartridges.

Other places, such as proximal to those vitals areas, or in cases of disabling with structural damage, rifles are going to shine. It is in these marginal areas where I think the arguments between pistol loads and calibers become relevant.

 

[pblanc]

Good video about caliper and weapon type 'effectiveness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nycYxb-zNwc&t=519s

We probably all agree that neutralization of an armed attacker does not necessarily require killing the attacker, and the preferred outcome in most cases would be to end the attack without a lethal outcome. But most of us are also well-aware of the cases of determined attackers who did not quit the attack despite sustaining multiple gunshot wounds, even including wounds that proved to be mortal but not immediately incapacitating. And in those cases, stopping the attack usually means killing the attacker.

The Ellifritz data presented in the video is carefully selected to suggest that there is little difference in the ability of handguns and long guns to incapacitate an attacker. What the narrator has done is to take the percentages of individuals not incapacitated regardless of how many rounds hit them, irrespective of wound location, and subtract those percentages from 100. But there are many reasons an attacker might or might not be incapacitated including psychological factors that have little to do with wounding effectiveness. Also, an individual with one or more extremity wounds is much less likely to be incapacitated than an individual with one or more torso or head hits. And if you examine the data closely, you will see that the great majority of long gun wounds were sustained by individuals who received only one wound. The percentage of multiple wounds was much higher for handguns, another factor that would influence the percentage of attackers not incapacitated regardless of the number of hits sustained.

A much better demonstration of the difference in wounding effectiveness and lethality between handguns and long guns can be taken from Ellifritz' data on the percentage of individuals who were actually incapacitated by one hit to the torso or head, and the percentage of such hits that were fatal.

For rifles: percentage incapacitated by one hit to torso or head - 80%
percentage of hits that were fatal - 68%

For shotguns: percentage incapacitated by one hit to torso or head - 84%
percentage of hits that were fatal - 65%

In comparison for handguns chambered in the most common defensive calibers the numbers were:

38 Special: percentage incapacitated by one hit to head or torso - 55%
percentage of hits that were fatal - 29%

9 mm Luger: percentage incapacitated by one hit to head or torso - 47%
percentage of hits that were fatal - 24%

357 (SIG and Magnum): percentage incapacitated by one hit to head or torso - 61%
percentage of hits that were fatal - 34%

.40 S&W: percentage incapacitated by one hit to head or torso - 52%
percentage of hits that were fatal - 25%

.45 ACP: percentage incapacitated by one hit to head or torso - 51%
percentage of hits that were fatal - 29%

So for long guns we are looking at a one hit (to torso or head) incapacitation rate of 80-84%, whereas for handguns that rate varies from 47-61%, a quite significant difference. If you exclude the 357 Magnum and SIG, you are looking at a chance of incapacitation with a long gun of 4 out of 5 or better, whereas with a handgun the chances are around fifty-fifty.

But the difference in lethality is even greater, 65-68% for long guns versus 29-34% for handguns. Long guns proved to be at least twice as lethal in Ellifritz' study.

A solid non-extremity hit with a rifle or shotgun is much more likely to incapacitate an attacker and is much more likely to be lethal than a comparable hit from a handgun chambered in one of the common defensive calibers. And once again, even if we look only at torso and head gunshot wounds, 2/3 to 3/4 of handgun wounds are not lethal.

 

[Rachen]

pblanc: That is a really interesting read. It is surprising how many handgun hits to vitals even like the head are actually survivable, though the study doesnt mention the fact that these non-fatal hits probably left the victims with permanent debilitating injuries, up to and including full vegetative states and/or morbid disfiguration. Even the data on rifles and shotguns...Wow...So approximately 35 percent of those hit in the head by RIFLE shots were not killed and even more shocking, 15-20 percent were not even stopped?

Does it mention the caliber, projectile type, and velocity of the weapons used in these case files? Since a .22LR fired out of a youth training carbine also falls under the category of "rifle", as well as a full-powered .300 Win. Mag. And it is probably highly unlikely that someone hit with a .300 WinMag in the head would not be instantly incapacitated. Likewise, a 9mm Luger FMJ and a 9mm+P with a XTP slug topping it are technically the same handgun round, but the effects of hits from these two would differ quite substantially.

This just goes on to illustrate that firearms are not death rays or magic talismans. A particular load delivering bone crushing energy at a chrony test does not mean it is 100% bone crushing in real life. Shot placement is the key to success.

 

[Laz]

Just curious. Is the second number in each case (fatal shots) a percentage of the first number (incapacitating hits) or a percentage of 100% of single shots to torso or head, i.e. of all the hits? I’m assuming the latter?

 

[pblanc]

Here is the link to Greg Ellifritz study:

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/an-alternate-look-at-handgun-stopping-power

The calibers of the weapons are generally stated but the numbers were insufficient to stratify the results according to projectile type or cartridge type beyond caliber. To try to breakdown the results in this way would have left insufficient numbers in many groups to have any meaningful significance in the opinion of the author.

Non-fatal head gunshot wounds are not particularly uncommon if the cranial cavity is not penetrated. A "rule" of modern trauma surgical care is that any victim of penetrating trauma who arrives at a trauma center with a blood pressure "should" survive. Of course, that is not 100% but it is close. Blunt trauma is a whole other ballgame.

 

[hdwhit]

Sorry to get to this discussion late, but before anyone can have a meaningful discussion of a concept like "stopping power", it is first necessary to define the term in a way that is meaningful and can be repeatedly demonstrated.

I can take a 25 ACP pistol and shoot the proverbial "linebacker for the Green Bay Packers" in the medulla and they will die instantly. Alternatively, I can empty all six chambers of a 357 Magnum revolver into the same individual, strking them only on the periphery and they will walk out of the hospital in a few weeks time.

Does that mean the 25 ACP has more "stopping power" than the 357? Of course not. But what it does mean it that the concept has to first be defined - and that definition has to take into account not only energy imparted to the target, but shot placement, wound ballistics and the criteria for what constitutes a "stop", before it can be meaningfully discussed.

 

[stagpanther]

I once saw a gang hit--a kid was standing at the corner when a car pulled up, down went the window and at the distance of just a few feet some gangstah emptied the entire magazine of a 45 acp pistol at the kid. The kid took off running faster than a track star--but after I called it in the police caught both the shooter and the shootee. The kid shot had just one hit low, a pass-through through the side, and he calmly stood while the EMT's administered first aid to him and the police gathered evidence.