striking a ballance between accuracy,power and shot capacity in a defensive handgun
 

I was at an indoor range recently, just maintaining my familiarity with several handguns I own,
remember that texas church where a member of the congregation dropped a homicidal nut case in under 6 seconds
with a head shot?
that impressed me!

I was comparing my skills in speed, dexterity, target acquisition and accuracy in fairly rapid target acquisition and fire drills,
I'm a firm believer in only hits count!
I started out at the range at 25 yards,
where I placed a 3" orange dot at 25 yards, due to range regulations rapid repeat fire was not allowed.
Id start with the handgun held pointing at the range floor yards short of the target and a buddy would tap me on the shoulder ,while he held a stopwatch
and timed the tap, he gave me, until I shot, time delay , we tried to keep in under 2-3 seconds , for a single aimed shot,
but obviously that took repetition to get decent results,
after about 15 minutes of practice results improved noticeably.
and he recorded the hits or distance the bullet hit from the dot center. (yes I shoot revolvers double-action)
what came as a mild surprise to me at least was that the EAA 45 was consistently both very competitive in accuracy and one of the fastest in getting on target,
its comparatively shorter than the others in sight radias and barrel length,but it was very fast and accurate.
now the difference was minimal, but thats because I practice regularly with all those handguns.
the revolver proved to be marginally more accurate, the 10mm glock was close, and the EAA45 whitness was the least accurate but marginally faster
the differences in speed and accuracy were all averages under 1 second average for 10 shots and under 1" in the difference of the groups.
what really opened my eyes was how inconsistent and frankly embarrassingly ineffective I was starting out, as Ive done this repeatedly for decades,
I was cutting the outer edge of the orange dot far more often than the center when I started,
several of my knowledgeable and experienced friends were trying to duplicate what I was doing,
but they had not practiced and did about as expected.
, now I'm certainly NOT a great shot. ,
when I started, most of my rapidly taken shots barely hit the 3" orange dot at 25 yards or were within an inch or so of it...
this improved with practice.
but guys I shoot with that have a little problem consistently hitting a 3" orange dot at 25 yards,they thought they could do better,
if they take their time at shooting, some could, but all of them proved to be far less capable if rushing and were trying to get off a shot in under 3-4 seconds.\
several friends carry glock 9mm pistols with the idea larger magazine capacity is a major advantage,
personally I think only hits count and if you have a high magazine capacity, you can,t miss fast enough to make up for a couple fast well placed shots
If I could do better with a 6 shot 357 mag revolver than a 18 shot 9mm, Id carry the revolver every time.

(Yeah I grabbed the pictures of the pistols off the internet rather than taking pictures of my personal handguns)
but they are very representative of mine

yeah I know some of you guys will be screaming all those guns are to large to carry concealed....
well, ive carried all three at different time over the past 3 decades and I'm fairly large at 6'3" and 255 so I have no issues doing so in inside the waist band or shoulder holsters in the revolvers case, you would be amazed at what a quality holster and a loose shirt will easily conceal


a glock 10mm,

a EAA 45 whitness

the EAA WITNESS is an EXCELLENT VALUE in a REASONABLY PRICED DOUBLE ACTION 45 ACP PISTOL
,a S&W 357 8" revolver

Threads like this are all over the Internet, and unfortunately, the common popular opinion in these discussions will inevitably ignore decades of real-world data. Results from thousands upon thousands of real-world cases, including medical examiner reports and police/agency reports, have proven there is no statistical difference in stopping power for handgun cartridges larger than 380acp. Equally, accuracy at extended ranges like 25-50yards has proven to hold no value in these real-world cases.

These “bigger is better” colloquialisms like, “I don’t need a big magazine when the first shot does the job,” or “make mine start with a 4” just don’t hold up to scrutiny. The data is there, the 45acp and .357mag are not better stoppers than the 9mm or 40 S&W, it has been proven. No handgun is a good stopper, but above 380acp, they’re all statistically equivalent. Equally, the “fast is fine, but accuracy is final,” or “a 22 in the eye beats a 45 in the leg,” just don’t pan out in the real world either. Self defense shooting data reflects center mass hits are equally difficult (shots fired vs. hits on assailants) regardless of cartridge or platform.

So the question a would-be defensive handgun buyer should really be asking themself - why would I carry less rounds in a larger firearm with more recoil if it won’t bring any advantage in stopping efficacy?

I guess I disagree with the well published data showing no difference in “stopping” capabilities from the .380’s up to the 45 ACP. In seeking a balance between number of rounds for practical carry and cartridge size....I still believe that the 40 S&W, fills that niche pretty well.

I also do not fall into the light weight, high velocity bullet following. No typical, defense (human defense) handgun can produce enough velocity where .....ft/lbs energy, shock, large temporary wound channel, ect. play a significant role in stopping ability/ stopping effectiveness. Obviously, the ability to properly place the projectile “trumps” all else....but, give me me a large diameter, moderately heavy, defense handgun bullet. My preferred weighs by caliber.....9 mm/147, 10mm or 40 S&W/ 180, 45 AC/230. I’ve never had to use a handgun for defense against a human, and, unless the human is “hopped-up” on drugs, humans are much more responsive to trauma from a gunshot wound than is an animal. I believe that much of this response is simply from the fact that a human has the mental capability of knowing they have been shot, whereas an animal does not mentally process this. An animal responds much more noticeably to a large diameter, heavy bullet offering deeper penetration, offering greater damage to structure and tissue at handgun velocities than to a smaller diameter, lighter bullet.

And, most of these comparisons do not take into consideration, seasonal clothing types, size of the assailant, mental status of the assailant, ect. “If” all of the above scenarios play out together...you want/need more than whatever you likely have. Summary: IMO, there’s no substitution for “cubic inches”.....I’ll take the larger caliber - Thank You! 😊 memtb

yeah I started the thread to get people thinking about their options and potential responsibilities.
yeah you may not agree with me, thats fine,
but ask yourself if you would rather have a handgun you know has a well documented history of effectively stopping an attack,
or something you selected based mostly on ease of concealment,
and I'd also submit that regular practice,
and good familiarity with what you carry ,
and maintaining constant situational awareness,
goes a long way toward increasing your odds of winning or ideally avoiding a deadly confrontation.


https://www.tierthreetactical.com/1...ats-backed-by-data-and-real-world-experience/

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.c...out-gunfights/

https://lfb.org/fbi-statistics-revea...arms-training/

https://www.handgunsmag.com/editoria...unfight/138051

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ice-shootings/

https://www.policeone.com/police-pr...here-did-all-the-bullets-go-oggvkU3vFD3KN3TP/

https://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/3...ge-statistics/

btw Ive tried a 9mm pistol on feral/wild hogs and a 357 mag and a 10 mm and a 45 acp,
if you do that a few times you'll see there does tend to be a difference in effective results
in relation to the cartridge used.

Take a few days to read through Ellifritz’s dataset. It’s not some anecdotal game of “I spoke with a handful of folks who had been involved in gunfights, his work is a thorough overview of thousands of defensive shooting cases.

One example of a synopsis article can be found here:

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alte...stopping-power

You’ll note - the .380 acp, in over a hundred cases for each cartridge, offered less shots before incapacitation, higher one shot stop percentage, and higher one shot incapacitations than the 45 acp - and almost identical “percentage of failure to incapacitate.”

Personal preferences don’t play into statistics.

Quote: Personal preferences don’t play into statistics.



They do, when it’s my butt on the line! Maybe, I should consider a .380ACP the next time I go hand-gunning for elk, bear, or moose. Well.....maybe not! 😉

While I do appreciate you supplying us with easy access to these documents....I guess I prefer to be ignorant and will take my chances with a somewhat larger bore, more powerful handgun cartridge! memtb

Memtb2149 I believe you'd be wise to listen to Nomercy's comments. He's been aound a while as have some other folks that have yet to respond to this thread. I own handguns from .22 up to .44 mag but my daily carry is a M&P Shield in 9mm which I have on me over 75% of the time. Other times its either my M&P40 or my Taurus G2C 9mm. Although I have a 1911 in .45ACP and a pair of .44 mags with different length barrels and a 357 with a 4" barrel I see no real need for them when I can unholster aim and shoot with relative good speed and accuracy with the 3 mentioned and b e able to get s 2nd or even 3rd shot off faster than with one of the bigger bores.

While my preference for a carry gun is at least .40 caliber, and I practice and must qualify annually, I believe more important than the caliber is how well you can shoot the gun and hit what and where you are aiming at. As Bill Hickock was known to say, " you cannot shoot fast enough to make up for poor marksmanship". I will add, a 50 caliber is no better than a .357. .38 or .45 or .40 caliber if you are incapable of hitting your target under stress.

bronco22000, I’m not taking this lightly. Although, I’ve not the thousands of examples of research as do the aforementioned coroners, doctors, police, ect. I’ve been shooting handguns for almost 60 years, handloading for 52 years, and handgun hunting for 50 years.....my limited experiences suggest larger works better!

Oldtimr, In my comments, I assumed equal bullet placement.

My carry guns are of significantly less recoil than other handguns I use, while I ain’t no Jerry Miculek.....I feel pretty comfortable with the minimal recoil produced by my carry guns. When I can be convinced that in a worst case assailant issue, such as previously mentioned, a .380 ACP can perform equally to that of a 40 S&W or 45ACP....I guess that I’ve a bunch of guns/reloading equipment to dump!

So....is there a .380 ACP with will fit my hands, offer the ease of magazine manipulation, or even trigger control that a somewhat heavier, larger framed handgun can offer?

I know that I appear to be argumentative here, but, I can’t “wrap my head around” these findings and recommendations! memtb

memtb

It’s in our culture to think bigger is better, and we even try to convince each other it is. But the data out there shows defensive shooting is largely like shooting rabbits, and not really like hunting big game - pretty much ANY centerfire pistol is more than big enough to do the task as well as it can be done. So more is just more - and usually just means more weight, more recoil, and more wasted space in the magazine.

For the record, I refused the Ellifritz dataset the first time I saw it. It’s counter-intuitive to see these pipsqueak cartridges with equal or superior performance in real world data. Surely more bullet weight is better? Surely more power is better? Surely a larger framed pistol is better? But the data holds water when you start poking at it. So in the real world, we’re not really asking very much of our handguns... so having a .357mag, capable of dropping a deer at 100 yards, really isn’t pertinent for stopping a bad guy at arms’ reach. I really feel like I’m better armed carrying a G22 than carrying a G19, but statistically, I’m not - I’ve just been mislead by the common popular opinion for decades of my life.

While I don't have the "gun fights" under my belt the old man had, I have unfortunately been in a few in both receiving, vested thankfully, and delivering projectiles. While statistically what nomercy is stating may be true, having "been there done that" kind of gives me a slightly differing opinion than those statistics say. Now yes, a vast percentage of conflicts involving firearms in the civilian world are up close and personal. I believe the average is within 20 feet? Correct me if I am wrong there. Now, at 20 feet, pretty much any center fire will penetrate deeply enough to cause enough internal damage to stop an assailant. But the problem that is encountered is the exact same one that hunters encounter. Unless you cause an immediate dump in blood pressure, enough to disrupt brain function, then you have to keep shooting. Or you cause CNS disruption. Either one requires marksmanship as well as penetration and bullet opening performance. Now todays bullet technology has been greatly improved, especially in the last 10 years, since a lot of those statistics were gathered. But to say a .380 is going to penetrate and perform even as well as a 9mm is pushing the limits of ballistic sciences. Will a .380 do the job at arms length where you are most likely going to need it? Yes it should do well. But will that same gun/cartridge combination perform as well as a 9mm at 20 feet? Not likely. I doubt someones accuracy while under fire is going to be what it is at the range. Yes well practiced individuals should have the muscle memory to perform the basics. But speaking from unfortunate experience, it isn't going to happen like you think it's going to. I'm in no way saying a .380 can't do the job but I'm just not going to put my life on the line with such an anemic round. The 9mm is pushing it for me but I am extremely accurate with it and confident which is almost as important as the cartridge itself. If you aren't confident in the firearm you are carrying, you will damn sure break under the pressure of a gunfight.

All this is just my opinion and we all know what opinions are compared to.

This is a very interesting topic. Kudos to hardcast for starting it. I think his points about practice, being familiar with your weapon and maintaining situational awareness are all valid. I think NoMercy448's points got lost a little bit in that he said "No handgun is a good stopper, but above 380acp, they’re all statistically equivalent." While he gave a few examples comparing a .380 to a .45, his main point was that all calibers above a .380 are statistically equivalent and that no handgun caliber is a good stopper. The author he quoted looked at a few thousand gunfights to determine his data. I would have more questions but that author explained his limitations and he seems headed in the right direction. Hunters life, I wouldn't snub my nose at carrying a 9mm. I recently switched back to a 9mm from a .45 based on tactical training performance at active shooter training. Memtb, a 40 S&W isn't a guaranteed 1-shot stop based on personal experience. ;)

On duty, I have carried .45, .40S&W and 9mm. Off duty, I have carried all of those as well as .380's when I needed extra concealment. I carry based on situational requirements and limits. I'm not trying to put words into NoMercy's mouth but as I understand his posts and the author he linked, 9, 40 and 45 (all above a 380) have very similar results in shootouts and that a person's familiarity and competence with any one of these calibers (and the pistol used) are more important than just the size of the caliber. I also liked NM's linked article as it statistically confirms that if I'm stuck carrying a .380 because of the event requirements, I'm not hopelessly under-gunned. As always, YMMV but that is the freedom we all have to make these kinds of choices.

I don't snub it, it's just borderline for me. And my apologies, after re-reading Nomercy's posts I see he meant calibers starting above .380. I absolutely love my 1911's in .45 but in seasons other than winter it isn't practical unless I'm wearing a suit, which all mine are tailored to my 4 o'clock carry position and a couple for shoulder holster but all in all I carry a few different 9mm's more often than anything. One of my new favorites is the px4 storm compact. Great little carry piece. Points naturally and has very little felt recoil for it's small size.

I probably should have rephrased the "snub" comment. My apologies. I should have used something similar to under-gunned. I can see where if a person is looking at 1-shot stop scenarios, they might assign more weight or consideration for a larger caliber. With ball ammo, that would be a wise consideration. With older less effective hollow point ammo, it would still be worth considering. With the newer HP ammo and its' much improved performance levels, the differences aren't as great between the major calibers (9, 40 and 45). Shot placement is huge of course but so is the ability to make quick follow-up shots if needed. That aspect was obvious in NM's linked article. Shotguns and rifles both had a 1-shot stop effectiveness in the mid 80's percentile and most pistols had around 50% or sometimes less.

The type of shooting engagement can also make a difference in what caliber/pistol is going to work better. If a person is in some kind of standoff engagement where they have good cover, a fast follow-up shot isn't as important. If a person is making a dynamic entry and follow through sweep as in an active shooter situation, then fast follow-up shots and shooting accurately on the move become more important. That type of situation was what convinced me to switch back to a 9 from a 45. In fairness, I also switched from a compact to a full size pistol as well. I can shoot proficiently with 9, 40 or 45 in compact and full size pistols. What I found was that I was just a little quicker and slightly more accurate with a full size 9 in dynamic entries and hostage situations with a full size 9mm. As always, YMMV as each of us is likely going to experience a little bit different shooting situations depending on our jobs, etc.

Can't begin to tell you how many people I've told this exact info to!
I remember 1 guy....I just get done telling him this info, and he's like,so yea a .45 is the way to go....?? whaaaaat??? lol.

I honestly think many people in our society don't understand "statistics" at all, and can't process the info.

My general consensus is get a 9mm, for 2 legged threats, unless you have a specific reason to get a .380, .40, or .45

There’s a myriad of issues which will forever carry this “discussion” forward.

Naturally, the most prevalent is the American culture of “bigger must be better.” Regardless of whether “bigger” actually can or ever is proven “better,” or despite the fact it is proven that bigger is NOT actually better. As is the case here - it’s been proven, bigger is not actually better.

Equally, the global predisposition to not understand technical or statistical analysis at any level, and a general popular refusal to put forth effort to do so. If data is difficult to understand AND the conclusion violates my personal belief, then I can plausibly dismiss all of it as long as I don’t try to understand any of it...

And of course, there simply is no mechanism to independently prove or disprove any given hypothesis in this discussion. Is a 9mm better than a 45? Or vice versa? Well, design an experiment. Have a thousand people attack you, and dispatch half of them with 9mm’s and half of them with 45’s - then maybe we’ll know. Pretty ridiculous. So instead, the only real world data we can cite are threefold: 1) ballistic data, 2) empirical results in controlled experiments using simulated media, and 3) extremely varied data from inconsistent and uncontrolled real-world defensive shooting events. Of these, the first two data sets appear to have the greatest integrity, but obviously have the least validity and applicability, whereas the 3rd data type is highly valid and applicable, but the integrity is challenged by the nature of the incredibly varied sample set. No two real-word defensive scenarios are alike, so the analytics rely upon a massive dataset which must be normalized for comparison.

Which means collection of the data is exceptionally burdensome, which in turn means collection of such a dataset with any quality is exceptionally rare. But there are a few, and the results tend to point the same direction:

A vast majority of folks believe in an advantage of heavier bullets and more power in a defensive handgun, but unfortunately, this popular opinion simply isn’t justified or supported by the real-world results.

But even knowing this, being so “woke,” I carry a G19 whenever I feel my risk profile is heightened, instead of an LCP, and have resorted to carrying a P224 in 357Sig in certain risk scenarios as well... all the while recognizing the hypocrisy and silliness in “up arming” in these different risk exposures.

That's too long of a post to read nomercy.

I'm just going to assume it said that .45acp is the only way to go.

:barmy:
-Jake

We know the real reason. Your SIG was starting to pout. :D

anyone notice that there are very few military pistols with less than a 9mm para in power?
anyone who has ever tried to hunt with a pistol less powerful than a 9 mm para will be very likely to tell you,
why they now don,t do that.
I know from decades of experience hunting hogs and deer with a handgun that a 357 mag is about the minimum,
thats proven successful and a 10mm, 41 mag and 44 mag all have proven to be more effective at anchoring game close to where they were shot.
anyone notice that several states require a minimum cartridge power level or caliber to hunt with a handgun?
theres a reason, and its based on experience.

Hardcast, you started this discussion with defense caliber/cartridges in mind not hunting. Hunting distances are often much further than defense and to put it simply, humans are much easier to drop than hogs or deer for the most part. Now and again you have someone hopped up on pcp or some other extreme stimulant but for the most part we are so much easier to kill quickly. Or at least to put out of a fight. Granted I like the secure feeling I get with carrying a .45 but I know there really isn't that much difference between damage from it or a 9mm with todays bullet technology. It's a mind thing. I still carry 9mm pistols much more often than my beloved .45's but I practice constantly and am highly confident in both my ability to hit what I am aiming at and the function of my guns.

Military selections based on Hague Convention requirements, deployed in the context of a battlefield, have very little to do with non-restricted civilian selections, deployed in the context of defensive shootings. Expanding bullets, as a class in total, are proven superior stoppers than ball ammo.

Shooting roundball: I have noticed that my long slide 1911...in 45 acp, displays more "umph" against reactive targets --- including a bigger hole --- than a lesser round like the 9mm roundball.

Even though it's banned in certain competitions: My Kimber tungsten guide rod...goes a long way in controlling recoil, with my long slide in 45 acp --- It also gives it a better balance.

So you carry to protect yourself against these reactive targets?

I hear those evil silhouette paddle targets can be quite deadly if not oiled properly.

Legacy wise- 9mm

21st century wise, especially with the introduction of Speer's Gold Dot JHP in the caliber- 5.7x28mm.

I think 99.9% of us would be absolutely fine with any of the excellent modern .380's on the market. That is what I carry.

This is going to throw a little gas on the discussion fire so to speak :D but, I was at a local rancher's spread who raises Charolais cattle this morning. I was there to watch the slaughter and field dressing of a steer that I had bought a half interest in. 1250 pounds on the hoof at a year and a half old. Yes, these cattle grow up big. Anyway, the butcher used a .22 LR in a rifle (avg length barrel, prolly 18-22" or so) to dispatch the steer with one shot to the front of the head, midway between the eyes and where the horns would be. A single shot and that steer fell to the ground and was DRT.

I am NOT advocating that anybody carry a 22 LR for CCW or self defense. However, when you read the article NM linked, it's not so far fetched that a .380 was able to get the job done half of the time or so. I am not advocating anybody carry a .22LR for self defense/CCW unless that is all you have (feel sorry for anybody in those shoes). I was carrying a .45 CCW this morning btw. I guess what I am saying is carry what you feel most comfortable with but NM's points are still valid. If anything, they reinforce the importance of shot placement and the fact that caliber cannot make up for poor shot placement. I would never tell somebody not to carry what they feel comfortable with and neither IMHO is NoMercy448. What NM is saying, though, is an attempt to spur some discussion about caliber effectiveness and the fact (as born out by the linked study/paper) that a person can successfully defend themselves with a .380, 9mm, 40 or 45.

If you wanted to take away anything from the discussion, it should be that pistols are still only effective up to 60% of the time; shotguns and rifles are effective about 80+% of the time and nothing beats using good cover, good tactics and bringing several of your friends who also carry guns. :D As always, YMMV and it is your rear end that you're betting on.

When a .22 rimfire enters a skull, more than likely it will run around the inside of the skull a couple times doing a lot of damage, however I would only carry a .22 handgun for self defense if I had no other choice available. btw, many many deer were and are shot at night with a light using the ,22 rimfire long rifle round.

One point that has not been made yet is diameter of the bullet, expanded or not. There is no arguing that a close shot next to an artery or a major nerve grouping might not cut or damage that sensitive spot as a 9mm and miss, whereas a .45 could. That could be the difference between you being shot or stabbed or not. The ability of a round to penetrate deep is another consideration. In that case, statistics mean nothing. Actual hole size or depth of penetration could mean everything. That's why some like to use larger broadheads than smaller ones. That's why bigger IS better if your proficiency is basically similar. Only you can find that out. I know that I'm faster on multiple targets with a 9 than a 45 in similar guns. How much does that matter if only one or two shots are needed? We can't know that ahead of time. I also know the 45 makes a larger hole which may or may not matter. To the center of a lung it won't matter. To the extreme edge it will matter. It could save your life if you can handle it. There are so many variable to consider. Many new shooters are obviously better off with less recoil and muzzle blast. Many are better off with a medium sized firearm than a smaller or larger one. It pays to take the time to find all this out for yourselves and only use statistics as another guide in making your choices.