"An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" by Greg Ellifritz

[DocGKR]

Recently I have received additional questions regarding by Greg Ellifritz's "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866).

Fortunately the author clearly identifies the flaws with it in his text.

The important take away points are:

-- Lot's of people choose to stop (psychological incapacitation) rather than being forced to stop (physiological incapacitation) when shot with handguns.

-- All the service caliber handguns work about the same for unobstructed shots.

-- Head shots provide more effective rapid incapacitation than torso shots; both are better than peripheral hits.

-- Rifle and shotguns are more effective at stopping bad guys than handguns.

In essence, it fundamentally agrees with everything we have been saying for the past two decades...

[BuckskinJoe]

Recently I have received additional questions regarding by Greg Ellifritz's "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866).

Fortunately the author clearly identifies the flaws with it in his text.

The important take away points are:

-- Lot's of people choose to stop (psychological incapacitation) rather than being forced to stop (physiological incapacitation) when shot with handguns.

-- All the service caliber handguns work about the same for unobstructed shots.

-- Head shots provide more effective rapid incapacitation than torso shots; both are better than peripheral hits.

-- Rifle and shotguns are more effective at stopping bad guys than handguns.

In essence, it fundamentally agrees with everything we have been saying for the past two decades...

All true, however....

Even the title of his publication references "stopping power," and those two words are used repeatedly with no working definition or clinical support. He speaks of one-shot stops but more of "average number of rounds to incapacitation." Mr. Ellifritz's science is exceedingly flawed.

In his conclusion section, among other things, he states, "The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s (emphasis added.)

I believe it a huge stretch to say that there isn't a material difference between the .22 and the 9mm or .40 or .45. The logical extension is to conclude that a .22 is a good choice for a defensive caliber.

While I agree that much of what Mr. Ellifritz derives from his "research" holds water, some of his conclusions and the methods he used to arrive at his conclusions leak like a sieve.

[Kain]

I have seen this article crop up on other forums I frequent, on one local forum I see it on average of twice a month in fact with someone claiming it as if it were given to them by the hand of God himself. I personally agree with the spirit of the study and the conclusion, however like BuckskinJoe I find the holes in the methodology and science cause the study to fall flat. Not trying to start a fight, but there are holes and some, at least to me, pretty large issues, some having to do with some of his sample sizes, some with him combining calibers into a single category (All rifle caliber's together being a huge issue in my mind), and the fact that I don't feel all variables are taken into account (The first one that comes to my mind in regards to your primary service calibers, and following a study LEOKA found was that many of your police officers who fire their sidearms in the line of duty are already shot when they return fire, reducing their effectiveness, want to say it was around 63% accuracy after being shot). It is an interesting read and I do find it to be a good example to show that your primary service calibers are pretty equal in effectiveness, or lack there of, I don't feel that its an end all be all study that some prefer to push it as, a good read, and interesting, but I have seen on some occasions people pushing it as being more then it is, and at least one self proclaimed defensive firearm instructor use the data to push the .22 as the best defensive caliber because of the data in the study and because the Massad used it(Will look to see if I can find the video).

Personal thoughts, good read, interesting, but has issues in methodology which I feel cause the study to fail, and should be taken with a grain of salt due to its issues, but the conclusion itself does have merit nonetheless, though how surprising they to most is another matter. Any caliber is better then nothing, and I still wouldn't desire to be shot with any of them.

[481]

All true, however....

Even the title of his publication references "stopping power," and those two words are used repeatedly with no working definition or clinical support. He speaks of one-shot stops but more of "average number of rounds to incapacitation." Mr. Ellifritz's science is exceedingly flawed.

In his conclusion section, among other things, he states, "The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s (emphasis added.)

I believe it a huge stretch to say that there isn't a material difference between the .22 and the 9mm or .40 or .45. The logical extension is to conclude that a .22 is a good choice for a defensive caliber.

While I agree that much of what Mr. Ellifritz derives from his "research" holds water, some of his conclusions and the methods he used to arrive at his conclusions leak like a sieve.

Joe,

I agree.

That Ellifritz lumps all of the calibers (from .22 to .45) included in his "study" together and then labels them collectively as being "adequate" without qualification of any sort is kind of troubling. There are those- and we've all seen 'em on the gun boards- who will take this dubious rating at face value and carry one the "small" calibers expecting "full size" performance from it only to get something other than what they'd been led to expect during a time of need.

I sure hope that who ever bought the rights to that piece made sure that there was an indemnity clause in the purchase agreement.

[Gramps]

DOC, Is there any "GOOD" info out there on comparison of stopping/slowing down, "Energy", foot lbs, as apposed to "Penetration", between diff rounds/calibers/bullet weight. They all seem to be close in penetration, but what about energy.

[DocGKR]

What about energy? Energy is not a wounding mechanism, it is just a measure of the potential ability to do work. These might prove enlightening:

http://www.lightfighter.net/forum/ba...le-performance

http://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition

[Gramps]

Good info. Thanks Doc.
So could one assume that 230 grns hitting a perp center of mass, is not going to physically slow down their advancement much more effectively than 124 grns energy wise? Much like hitting someone with an Oak 2x4 center of mass, as apposed to hitting them with a lighter weight, Fir 2x4.

[Redmanfms]

Good info. Thanks Doc.
So could one assume that 230 grns hitting a perp center of mass, is not going to physically slow down their advancement much more effectively than 124 grns energy wise? Much like hitting someone with an Oak 2x4 center of mass, as apposed to hitting them with a lighter weight, Fir 2x4.

Think about the impact your hand receives when you fire the weapon. Granted, there is some energy "lost" in the automatic operation of the weapon (unless, of course, it's a revolver) and in the weapon rotating in your hand, but that is about what a 'perp' feels when a handgun projectile hits them. Now think about the difference in recoil impulse between a .45 and 9mm and you get some idea of what difference it will make on the receiving end.

ETA: Basically no hand-held weapon generates enough energy to physically slow down the advancement of a human. Look up Newton's third law of motion and you should understand why.

[Arctic1]

@Gramps:

I can try to put it in to context for you, by comparing a 230 grain .45 ACP projectile, a 124 grain 9mm projectile and a baseball bat.

What you are asking, slowing someone down, isn't about energy, but about momentum.

Momentum (P) is mass (m) times velocity (v): P=mv
Kinetic Energy (K) is half the mass(1/2m) times velocity squared (v2): K=1/2mv2

When it comes to a bullet physically moving a human body, it is not possible. The momentum of the projectile can never overcome the inertia of the human body. It will simply pass straight through with negligible change of the velocity of the person hit. If that person is wearing body armor that stops the bullet, the impact will be felt in the manner you describe, but still not physically slow down the target.

Now for some numbers:


Momentum:

230 grain .45 ACP:
Velocity: 900 ft/s (270 m/s)
Mass: 230 grains (14,9 grams)
Momentum: 4.05 kg m/s

124 grain 9mm:
Velocity: 1200 ft/s (360 m/s)
Mass: 124 grains (8 grams)
Momentum: 2.88 kg m/s

Baseball bat being swung:
Velocity: 68.9 f/s (21 m/s)
Mass: 30oz (850 grams)
Momentum: 17.85kg m/s

Energy:

230 grain .45 ACP:
Kinetic Energy: 547 J

124 grain 9mm:
Kinetic Energy: 518 J

Baseball bat being swung:
Kinetic Energy: 187 J

So what do the numbers mean? The 230 grain .45 has a momentum of 4.05 kg m/s. That is the equivalent of someone throwing a 2kg rock at 2 meters pr second at you. Or a 7oz potato at 65 ft/s. If that does not knock you over or stop you, neither will the bullet.

If you weigh 70kg, your body will move at a speed of 0.05 m/s, or 0.112 mph after the impact of the 45. ACP. Negligible.

The 9mm will result in your body moving at a speed of 0.04 m/s, or 0.089 mph. Negligible.

The baseball bat will result in your body moving at a speed of 0.255 m/s, or 0.570 mph. A much more significant impact, despite having the lowest amount of kinetic energy.

[myv6]

Can't we all just agree that any round is better than no round, when you need it, and stop beating this dead horse already?


No matter what round you prefer, or what gun you carry, it is better than nothing at all. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.


I have seen 22lr be fatal with one (lucky) well placed shot. I've heard of 17+ rounds of 9 and 45 into one person and the still continue to fight.


All that being said i'd rather have 12 rounds of 9 over 8 of 45 any day.