Interesting thread on GT about bullet performance in actual shootings

[Marcus L.]

Marcus, would that compromise be strictly capacity?

Shootings pan out differently depending on your line of work and the environment that you work in. In a civilian shooting they are often under 7yards and usually only involve a few shots. In that case capacity isn't a big deal and a small CCW will often be ideal.

Law enforcement shootings are usually close up as well, but sometimes they are dynamic and at longer ranges. As a cop, if we expect trouble we bring a long gun and bring our friends who also have long guns.

If we resort to our handgun, it's usually because we were taken off guard and/or ambushed. When a badguy ambushes a LEO, they either wait till you get close and then they dump rounds at you at point blank range, or they get some distance and open up on you with a long gun. Either way, if you are being fired on the badguy is likely on the move and using cover/concealment. This means that no matter how skilled you are, you are going to be missing.....a lot. Most of these shootings only have a 20-25% hit rate by the officer. Remember, everything changes when someone is shooting at you and everything that you thought you knew on the gun range goes out the window. Also, you'll want to try to hit the badguy behind cover by doing things like bouncing rounds off the pavement to hit his legs........this requires more ammo. Although......larger calibers do this better too......

Given only a 25% hit rate, this is approximately how many hits you'd get in given your platform:
-9mm 15+1rds = 4 hits
-.40S&W 12+1rds = 3.25 hits
-.45acp 8+1rds = 2.25 hits

-9mm 17+1rds = 4.5 hits
-.40S&W 15+1rds = 4 hits
-.45acp 10+1rds = 2.75 hits

......hopefully some of those hits are center of mass.

So yes, magazine capacity is important. Good magazine capacity means you have more ammo on your belt to work with, and you'll spend less time reloading. When you are reloading, you are out of the fight and vulnerable. If you crank up the magazine capacity on the .45acp to over 10rds you often run into ergonomic problems. The overall dimensions of the grip gets larger making it harder to shoot with gloves on and single-handed, and trigger reach becomes more of a stretch(especially with gloves). For me, given all my likely circumstances and scenarios, the .40 is as large as I care to go. The KEY of course on the .40S&W is to use the 180gr loads which are quite mild in recoil and feel very similar to hotter 9mm loadings. A lot of people get turned off to the .40S&W after they shoot the higher energy loads like 155gr at 1200fps which are quite snappy.

My last reason for not using .45acp is because I am only allowed to use classic Sigs on duty. .45acp Sigs are very problematic and have durability problems. If I had to change calibers, I would much rather move back to 9mm than go larger than .40S&W.

[CLHC]

Very interesting discussion going on here and despite that it's written in English, most of it is over my head? Also, Welcome Aboard the M4C Lookin4U!

[SecretNY]

Let's remember that in the past mass shootings, the bg were using 9mm and .22. Not trying to be morbid, but they had a devastating impact.

I carry the .45, but always heard bad things about the .40. We are issued Win Ranger (although I can't remember what grain). I wouldn't carry the Glock 22 after all the problems it had(s). What platform would you recommend? M&P (which is what I have in .45)?

Great thread.

[thermocafe]

Greetings! I’d like the opportunity to share some more thoughts if you’d all permit me. Please forgive the length: I just started typing in MS Word and couldn't stop.

It’s really been bothering me this question of WHY…why does this caliber debate continue to rage on and on? Why does it cause such emotional reactions in so many?

Maybe the caliber debate is not an answerable question when posed in its current form?

Is it possible it’s like abortion? Maybe it’s not possible to find a “right” answer per se, ie. one that 100% of everyone will agree on as morally this or that…maybe we can only address the issue by knowing what works and what doesn’t. (Please understand I am NOT trying to work abortion into this discussion except to use the observations of the whole pro vs anti thing as an analogy to how we approach the caliber debate.)

On the abortion issue, if one looks at how society dealt with the issue in the past, and compare it to how we handle the issue now, and then look at how each affected the functioning of our society, it seems at least possible that the unanswerable moral “right” vs “wrong” issue could be side-stepped entirely. If we could reframe the question to reflect “what’s good for our society” and “what hurts our society”, maybe we could arrive at a more concrete and agreeable conclusion?

*Again, I’m using this analogy only as it applies to the caliber debate.*

So,perhaps if we looked at the history of armed encounters and their outcomes from the perspective of what allows the highest probability of survival in the extremely unlikely event of an armed confrontation, we could isolate what IS and what is NOT important in how to survive a confrontation.

Concerning the folks who get hysterical over “THIS caliber! No, THAT caliber!” debates, I ask myself: what happens when they encounter an angry, violent street thug who cares little for the lives of others? If someone gets that hysterical over a pleasant caliber debate, how are they gonna react in a real “yo momma’s a this, and I’m gonna rip yo that off and do something unpleasant down yo throat” kind of life-threatening situation?

I submit to you that this - in and of itself - speaks to the very heart of this entire matter!

Perhaps the psychology of confrontation may allow us a more concrete resolution to all this caliber debate.

Please allow me to explain.

I was thinking about this constant 9 vs 40 vs 45 vs this vs that vs the other, and I thought of the case of Lance Thomas. Here we have a man who was a participant in FIVE gunfights in his own store. There were surveillance videos of the incidents, and they have been fairly well documented publicly.

The caliber progression thru the five fights started with the .38 revolver on up thru the Sig .45. In all but the first instance, his attackers required multiple hits to go down. This was his reasoning behind why he went up in caliber from .38, thru 9mm, .357, and eventually .45ACP.

His first successful stop was a one-hit-stop, connecting with the face of the armed perpetrator. It was the third shot out of a .38 revolver, having missed with the first two. The suspect lived.

His final gun-fight involved several Sig 220s loaded with Glasers, and required multiple (twelve, if memory serves) successful hits to ensure the suspect went down - permanently.

Now on the face of it, we COULD say oh, the .38 is perfect, and the .45 is worthless. But I respectfully submit that this is grossly mis-leading, and takes the unique circumstances and psychology of confrontation out of the equation.

I further submit to you that when dealing with pistols, the psychology of the participants in the confrontation may be hands down the most important determining factor of all. FAR more important than “caliber X is best”.

Allow me to quote from Col. Hatcher’s Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers:

Undoubtedly surprise is a big factor, and the easiest person to stop with any bullet is the man who has no expectation of being shot.

Could this be the rub of the whole matter?

[thermocafe]

I can pretty much guarantee that if I were to clad myself in black with a shaded respirator, conduct a dynamic entry into a residence with an unprepared occupant, run straight at and shoot that occupant with a .22 twice in the chest and once in the head, they’d be on the floor. In fact, I would bet with most people – if you caught them by surprise – a single .22 round would be sufficient to put them down.

In that type of scenario, I am going to provide absolutely no argument that caliber “X” is way more than sufficient.

But how do you suppose this would fly in a civil trial? Do we really believe a judge or jury would accept this as suitable self-defense for an individual, private citizen? John Q decked out in tactical gear, busting down the door, running right at “the perp” while shooting? Self defense?

On the contrary, you can imagine the legal repercussions, even in the most pro-defense states.

This is why maybe the single, isolated issue of caliber vs. caliber is an unanswerable question? Maybe we’re asking the wrong question?

Concerning gunfights, by the time a Trauma Surgeon or Medical Examiner sees the individuals with GSWs, BY DEFINITION the fight is already over. So the best they can do is look at the tissue damage and see its effects, and try to correlate it to controlled experiments and observation. They will get a barebones narration of the sequence of events in the confrontation.

If they’re lucky or inquisitive, they’ll have access to shot angles and bullet types. Otherwise, they can only go on what they see in front of them. And so it goes with forensics and trauma texts.

The only problem with drawing conclusions from what they see is that the Surgeons / M.E’s – at least in most cases – were no where near the fight when the fight took place.

I believe this can accurately be referred to as a systemic bias. The results and conclusions are skewed by the very nature of the system.

An example: let’s compare person A and person B, both gunshot victims.

Person A walks into the ER as a victim of an accidental GSW. Two-and-a-half days ago, Person A was the unfortunate recipient of a .22 round ricochet from a revolver to the stomach. The doctor on duty notices correctly there is almost ZERO tissue damage throughout the body, and as the individual was only shot once in the belly, there is little tissue damage – not even an exit wound. The little lead .22 projectile stopped nicely within the abdominal cavity of said victim. Person A walked into the ER.

Person B shows up to the M.E.’s office with 17 GSWs to the torso, neck, and extremeties. There is massive tissue damage. Person B was a wanted felony suspect engaged by multiple officers from multiple agencies with 5.56mm, 9mm, .40S&W, and even a shotgun slug. Person B is expired, but there is MASSIVE tissue damage. The interesting thing is that except for the 12 guage hole, all the other rounds look the same. They find fragments of the 5.56mm VMAX in the torso on radiology.

Now on the face of it, we’d reasonably look at those two events and say “hmm…that little .22 didn’t do much, but boy those 5.56mm VMAX, .40S&W and 9mm HSTs, and that Ranger slug really tore this sucker up. So make my handgun an XYZ.”

Not so fast.

The problem with this is that the .22 dropped Person A instantly, as it was Johnnie and Billy playing in the quarry. Johnnie, a 19 year old United States Marine on leave, was not expecting to get shot, was totally surprised and plopped instantly to the ground like a “marionette whose strings were cut”.

Person B, the 38yo wanted felony suspect, fought viciously until he was butt-stroked on the head with a flashlight. Only then did the fight end, with Person B expiring 9 minutes later from exsanguination.

See a problem with the blanket conclusion that “caliber x” is best?

It's easy to draw conclusions looking at a body on the slab or operating table, and easier to forget there were other things going on - it wasn't just the victim standing there allowing themselves to be shot so everyone could see how they'd react. There were emotions, desires, variations in intestinal fortitude, etc.

And observations of those in the O.R. or ME's office will, predictably, be consistent with others' observations from the same perspectives. But I submit that it’s deceptively easy to conclude that the observation from one perspective automatically guarantees the same observations from another perspective. A person shot with a 45 may look the same as one shot with a 9mm on the slab/table, but it seems reasonable that sometimes the stories of how they got there may be dramatically different (either way).

[thermocafe]

For private citizens, the desire is to end the fight and get out of danger as quickly as possible. Delta Force training with Ninja stealth and a team of Seals is not the self-defense minded private citizen’s main concern. It’s getting out of danger quickly.

Consider this video, starting at ~1:27, of a Navy Seal replying to the occasional critique of the the 9mm. Obviously it works for them.

I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, a Navy Seal. And therefore I most likely won’t have an assault rifle and 5 heavily armed team-mates around me in the event of an armed encounter at the local “Stop-n-Rob”.

So I submit that the importance of mindset to this whole debate cannot be understated or repeated enough. I’d go so far as to say that mindset may be a fundamental PART OF THE ANSWER.

If permitted by the staff of this site, I would also go so far as to suggest it may be extremely unfair to people new to this arena, for someone to assert that ANY given caliber is “the best”.

“Better”? Sure! But “best”? Not possible. The best caliber for stopping someone is a creosote-laden telephone pole to the chest at 40mph. Anyone want to volunteer to carry that concealed?

As many reputable ballisticians have pointed out, it “makes common sense” (Dr. Fackler) that a bigger-caliber weapon would cause more damage, including the consideration there is a squared-relationship between increasing caliber size and the sectional area of said caliber. Dr. Fackler was a huge proponent of the big-bore, along with many other “seen the elephant” instructors and professionals. Chuck Taylor’s first-person accounts of five shootings with a .45, one with a 9mm, and one with a .38 are very well known. According to his accounts, his adversaries “went down so fast [he] didn’t have time to fire a second shot.”

Now, thinking about the circumstances of those fights (I have no knowledge of specifics, other than all were “dead right there”), I’d consider it at least a possibility that some of those adversaries were surprised by his masterful response, thus contributing to their responses.

Therefore, how a confrontation goes down may be the most defining part of a consistent stop-the-fight answer.

If a street-thug comes upon a man in a suit on a date with his girl-friend, he assumes there is a worth-while risk-to-payoff ratio. He proceeds. When Mr. Niceguy unexpectedly draws, aims, and puts two .380 shots dead center-mass of thug in under half a second, all of a sudden our street thug finds himself totally thrown off guard and either runs or collapses.

On the other hand, if a complacent felon on-the-lam is suddenly cornered and surrounded by agents seeking to deny him his emancipation, then his anger, rage, and mental preparation will rise to the occasion. He is keyed up and is going to either fight free, or die trying. Thirty-three connecting 9mm shots will be relatively meaningless (it’s my understanding this is where the record number of shots-without-a-stop comes from: an actual incident in which officers connected with thirty-three 9mm’s without a stop).

So perhaps the caliber debate is not as easy as X vs Y, and can only be answered thru the consideration of mindset and preparation. As has been said again and again.

It makes me wonder if the reason behind the shrill hysterics in the age-old caliber debate is the age-old reason that Faith and Religion is so comforting: people don’t like the feeling of not knowing what’s gonna happen, as if no one is in control of anything.

Unfortunately, one cannot possibly accurately predict how a confrontation / gunfight will go down…I know if I could, I WOULDN’T BE THERE TO BEGIN WITH!

But in the caliber debate, people try to make predictions in an equation with WAY too many variables. There is nothing, short of not being there to begin with, that will GUARANTEE survival of any given encounter. The caliber debate rationally applied seems to affect only a part of the odds of our being victorious in an ugly encounter.

There are days and adversaries for whom a .177cal pellet would be sufficient – because of the psychological make up of the adversary and how the confrontation goes down. In this case, 9mm is supremely efficient, and would work magnificently.

Then some poor folk encounter those for whom a howitzer would not provide a one-shot-stop. So on that day, guess what? The .45 don’t accomplish what we hoped, and it therefore appears ineffective.

If a single individual experienced both the days above, without thinking about it, it is reasonable that the given individual would conclude the 9mm is “the best” and .45 is “not the best.”

But let’s not forget that in the overwhelming majority of confrontations: NO SHOTS AT ALL are ever fired. Brandishing the weapon alone is enough of a deterrent, even if it’s a non-firing fake. Interestingly, this has far more to do with the Psychology of Confrontation than a given caliber.

[thermocafe]

In the end, it seems that caliber selection is all about maximizing the odds of surviving a given encounter for which no predictions can be made. If true, that would explain the charged and unanswerable nature of these debates, as one person's scenario differs dramatically from another’s.

But the maximizing of odds would be another legitimate argument in favor of the bigger calibers.

I admit it is the pot calling the kettle black. I was a major .45 snob when I became a cop. My department issued 9mm Glocks. I’m terrible with a Glock to begin with – I simply cannot efficiently wield one. But our department had several successful encounters with its 9mm 127gr Winchester Ranger. I was educated.

Now given my choice, I still carry the .45. I feel more comfort - as if I’ve maximized my chances on that issue. But I also now accept that the 9mm can be quite successful too, ESPECIALLY if the other factors are adequately dealt with.

I profusely apologize for the length of this reply, but I felt it was necessary to point out other apparently legitimate considerations, so that someone reading this fine thread doesn’t read it and say “oooh, all I need to do to survive an armed encounter is carry a handgun of “X” caliber”, and forget to concentrate on more important considerations like preparation, training and mindset.

To me, careful study of the Psychology of Confrontation seems the only way to a definitive – and non-contentious – understanding of the caliber debate.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

[Lookin4U]

A fully expanded .380 bullet would have difficulty penetrating.

Did any of the inadequate penertations involve FMJ bullets or undeformed JHPs?

The inadequate penetrations involved both FMJ and JHP's. .380ACP seems to not only have difficulty with the depth it can travel into soft tissue, but also maintaining it's course... In other words, sometimes the 'length' of the wound channel may have, in and of itself, been suffuicient had the projectile not made a significant curve in it's path. ((The effect of a curved trajectory is, of course, to shorten the overall effective penetration).

This is a common problem with .380ACP and below. They frequently (there can be exceptions) lack both depth of penetration and sufficient momentum to maintain their path.

[Lookin4U]

Shootings pan out differently depending on your line of work and the environment that you work in. In a civilian shooting they are often under 7yards and usually only involve a few shots. In that case capacity isn't a big deal and a small CCW will often be ideal.

Law enforcement shootings are usually close up as well, but sometimes they are dynamic and at longer ranges. As a cop, if we expect trouble we bring a long gun and bring our friends who also have long guns.

If we resort to our handgun, it's usually because we were taken off guard and/or ambushed. When a badguy ambushes a LEO, they either wait till you get close and then they dump rounds at you at point blank range, or they get some distance and open up on you with a long gun. Either way, if you are being fired on the badguy is likely on the move and using cover/concealment. This means that no matter how skilled you are, you are going to be missing.....a lot. Most of these shootings only have a 20-25% hit rate by the officer. Remember, everything changes when someone is shooting at you and everything that you thought you knew on the gun range goes out the window. Also, you'll want to try to hit the badguy behind cover by doing things like bouncing rounds off the pavement to hit his legs........this requires more ammo. Although......larger calibers do this better too......

Given only a 25% hit rate, this is approximately how many hits you'd get in given your platform:
-9mm 15+1rds = 4 hits
-.40S&W 12+1rds = 3.25 hits
-.45acp 8+1rds = 2.25 hits

-9mm 17+1rds = 4.5 hits
-.40S&W 15+1rds = 4 hits
-.45acp 10+1rds = 2.75 hits

......hopefully some of those hits are center of mass.

So yes, magazine capacity is important. Good magazine capacity means you have more ammo on your belt to work with, and you'll spend less time reloading. When you are reloading, you are out of the fight and vulnerable. If you crank up the magazine capacity on the .45acp to over 10rds you often run into ergonomic problems. The overall dimensions of the grip gets larger making it harder to shoot with gloves on and single-handed, and trigger reach becomes more of a stretch(especially with gloves). For me, given all my likely circumstances and scenarios, the .40 is as large as I care to go. The KEY of course on the .40S&W is to use the 180gr loads which are quite mild in recoil and feel very similar to hotter 9mm loadings. A lot of people get turned off to the .40S&W after they shoot the higher energy loads like 155gr at 1200fps which are quite snappy.

My last reason for not using .45acp is because I am only allowed to use classic Sigs on duty. .45acp Sigs are very problematic and have durability problems. If I had to change calibers, I would much rather move back to 9mm than go larger than .40S&W.

Well stated.

One thing, while three shots may be a national average, it is way below what we see here.
Heck, we even see a number of multi-shot suicides! (Talk about something you want to get right the first time!)

I've never sat down and figured up our average, but I doubt it would be below 10 shots when people are hit (NOT suicides, LOL).
(side note, recently worked a homicide with 16 contact shots to the head - I'm sure only one was necessary, but that seems to be the "local mentality")

Also, our officers are trained to "shoot COM until threat is stopped" so we do not have the "officer fired 2 shots and then re-holstered before he was killed" stories here.

(Could tell you a few about officers "digging trenches" toward the suspect though! LOL)

[Lookin4U]

To me, careful study of the Psychology of Confrontation seems the only way to a definitive – and non-contentious – understanding of the caliber debate.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

I understand and appreciate what you are saying.
It is, in fact, true that many, if not most, confrontations are ended with the appearance of a weapon (there is no way to track how many unreported incidents of this occur, but it is reasonable to assume there are many in a nation of @ 80 million gun owners).

Unfortunately, there is so much variation in psychological response that it is totally unpredictable. I'm assuming you are LEO, and if so then you know we see more mentally ill people than anyone outside of the mental health profession - and these individuals act completely without pattern, rhyme, or reason.

My view of armed confrontation is simple and supported by actual shooting data (hey, I can't go out and shoot all of these people myself, so that's the best I, or anyone else, have).
Cause actual, physical damage assuming no beneficial reaction from your opponent.
If he stops when the gun appears, I'm finished.
If he stops when the first round is fired, I'm finished.
If he stops when the second round is fired, I'm finished.
If he stops when the third round is fired, I'm finished.
...
If he stops when the sixteenth round is fired, I reload, and I'm finished.
If he stops when the seventeenth round is fired, I'm finished.
etc., etc.

In a life-or-death struggle, never expect an easy end.

In all things in life it is far better, and safer, to be pleasantly surprised than devastatingly disappointed.

-Prepare for the worst.
-Prepare to do what you have to for yourself and/or others.
-Mentally prepare yourself to be hit, and know that it will almost certainly not be incapacitating.
-Get an ultra reliable plus gun you can always have with you (a gun you do not have, no matter how good, is worse than useless).
-Ensure that the ammunition has adequate, reasonable penetration (no good if the bullet doesn't get there).
-Practice, practice, practice - practice live fire, practice drawing from the way you actually carry it, dry fire, make up games, become comfortable with your gun.
-Practice switching hands, shooting weak hand. Statistically you're most likely to be hit in your gun hand, as your weapon will be the focus of your opponent's attention - and possibly bullets (indeed, this is a common injury we witness in our officer involved shootings).
-Shoot COM until the threat stops!
-Be prepared to reload and continue!