Best caliber for self defense

[Metric]

Originally Posted by The Verminator

The study is meaningless because it lumps together head shots and torso shots.

They should be separate studies as they are totally different outcomes.

And the ranking of the .32 above so many good cartridges is ludicrous.

The proper way to say it, imo, is that there are many, many more factors that are more important than caliber selection. So much so, that one can't even guess the caliber based on average results.

That's not a meaningless conclusion. In fact, it's quite an important revelation.

Shot placement would be one of those factors.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Metric

The proper way to say it, imo, is that there are many, many more factors that are more important than caliber selection. So much so, that one can't even guess the caliber based on average results.

That's not a meaningless conclusion. In fact, it's quite an important revelation.

Shot placement would be one of those factors.

No.

Giving a shot to the torso equal weight to a shot to the head is sheer fantasy.

Giving the .32 a higher ranking than the .357 magnum gets into the realm of lunacy.

[Metric]

The theory offered up in the study is that 9mm is over-represented in police shootings. And police are trained to keep shooting. Thus, even if one shot "would have been good enough" (if the cop stopped to evaluate the situation after one shot) the shootee is likely to end up with additional holes no matter what, driving down the "incapacitated by one shot" stat.

There are other stats in the study that aren't driven down in the same way.

But, it does underscore how "factors other than caliber" can be vastly more important to the average final outcome.

Assuming you are shooting a handgun caliber that reliably pokes a sufficiently deep hole in the target:
1) You are not entitled to a one-shot-stop, no matter what caliber you select.
2) You are not at an enormous disadvantage, either.
3) In self-defense, it is recommended that you put a hole through something the attacker urgently needs to be hole-free.

[Metric]

It's not a "rank" -- it's a statistical outcome from real-world shootings. Weird things happen, and the world is not obliged to make sense to us.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Metric

It's not a "rank" -- it's a statistical outcome from real-world shootings. Weird things happen, and the world is not obliged to make sense to us.

It's more like garbage in--garbage out.

It is a fatally flawed and unscientific effort from the beginning.

It concludes that a .32 is more likely to make a one shot stop than a .45 or a .357 Magnum or a .44 Magnum.

It fails to tell us if the bullet hit the head or the torso.

The poor fellow who gathered the info is obviously not using any valid scientific method.

[Metric]

For .32, I theorize an effect that is the reverse of the 9mm-effect postulated by Ellifritz. It would also tend to buff the .25's stats as well (but with .25 you're really toying with a possible failure of adequate penetration).

If you've just been shot by a 32, it was probably by a private citizen. You didn't expect him to be armed (he certainly didn't appear dressed for battle), but -- surprise! -- he was. You were expecting a sheep but ran into a sheepdog instead. And now you've been shot, as a consequence. Crap.

I propose that scenarios with "maximum surprise" of this kind are the most likely to abruptly change the mind of the attacker, after a single shot. And that kind of surprise is more likely to occur with mousegun calibers. They get a bump to the "psychological stop" mechanism, due to the likely nature of the shooting.

[Pumpkin]

To just list a particular cartridge without specifying which particular loading that’s offered for that cartridge is like saying a all new Mustangs no matter which model are faster than any new Camaro, again, no matter the model.
This would be a very short argument not based on any comparable facts.
The importance of shot placement is a no-brainer if you have any experience or knowledge of such things.

[Metric]

Originally Posted by The Verminator

It's more like garbage in--garbage out.

It is a fatally flawed and unscientific effort from the beginning.

It concludes that a .32 is more likely to make a one shot stop than a .45 or a .357 Magnum or a .44 Magnum.

It fails to tell us if the bullet hit the head or the torso.

The poor fellow who gathered the info is obviously not using any valid scientific method.

It doesn't conclude anything. It's just a statistical record of what happened. I get that it's counterintuitive. Especially if you've been paying a whole lot of attention to hundredths of an inch of bullet expansion in gel tests. As some of us might be prone to doing.

I mean, how could reality not be paying attention to our extremely-careful bullet selection?

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Metric

It doesn't conclude anything.

It DOES conclude something.

In his "Conclusion" section he says:

"Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important."

Bad advice.

Better advice: Folks, carry the most powerful round that you can shoot well enough to get center mass hits reliably at ten to twenty yards and carry the same gun so you can be totally familiar with it. Practice until you feel confident in your ability.

[Metric]

Yes, that line by Ellifritz is a respectable conclusion. My restatement: You can't make a reasonable guess at caliber based on the average results of shootings, so there must exist other factors at play that are far more important than caliber selection.

Nobody concluded that 44mag is blown away by 32acp for effectiveness against humans, even though 32acp has a shockingly good track record in that data set.

It's that any "edge" Dirty Harry might have over James Bond by virtue of caliber selection is dwarfed by other factors.

In the real world, it helps explain how folks like Mordechai Rachamim (Israeli sky marshal) could take his little Beretta 22 into battle against AK-weilding terrorists and emerge victorious on multiple occasions.

[44 AMP]

It's not a "rank" -- it's a statistical outcome from real-world shootings. Weird things happen, and the world is not obliged to make sense to us.

It is a rank, a horizontal row of items is a rank. Other than putting .25 before .22 it is also in ascending order, by size of round.

It is a statistical outcome of the data they chose to use.

I looked at the article, found the full data used as given to be somewhat interesting, and shows that the table posted here is valueless without explanation or background. I do not agree with the authors chosen parameters, and the way information is presented without explanation.

For example, he gives a percentage of one shot stop and a percentage of actual incapacitation from one torso or head hit. For the .32acp the one shot stop % is 40 but the "actual incapacitation" % is 72!!

I'm sure his math is sound, but as presented, no sound conclusions can be drawn without assuming things "not in evidence".

I don't know, because the author does not say, it doesn't seem to make sense, that the percent actually incapacitated is higher than the percent stopped.

UNLESS you realize that the percentages are of different things. WHAT things the percentages are of, is not clearly stated. Some appears self evident, some, not so much.

Say 40% are one shot stops. But 72% are "actually incapacitated". How can that be?? It COULD BE that 40% of the people shot were stopped, and 72% OF THE PEOPLE STOPPED were "actually incapacitated".

It could be something else, the author does not say. SO the table posted here is useless for drawing any valid conclusions other than its what the author's math came up with, the way he worked it.

Percentages and averages can be useful, can be statements of fact, but are not always valid indicators of anything other than the math used to create them.

Which is what I believe this table to be.

[Metric]

I agree that "actually incapacitated" was never clearly defined. I don't draw any conclusions from that number, for that reason.

However, stats like this are pretty well defined:

- On average, how many rounds did it take for the person to stop his violent action or be incapacitated? For this number, I included hits anywhere on the body. To be considered an immediate incapacitation, I used criteria similar to Marshall's. If the attacker was striking or shooting the victim, the round needed to immediately stop the attack without another blow being thrown or shot being fired. If the person shot was in the act of running (either towards or away from the shooter), he must have fallen to the ground within five feet.

The following stat is also pretty useful, and is probably a bit more in line with common intuition (mouse gun calibers don't do as well as service calibers and above, though the numbers again become indistinguishable above 380acp, until you get to rifle or shotgun):

- What percentage of people were not incapacitated no matter how many rounds hit them

My own conclusion is that caliber matters much less than I believed when I was a teenager. Putting a hole through something important is vastly more important than the size of the hole. I could always be wrong, but I don't think so.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Metric

In the real world, it helps explain how folks like Mordechai Rachamim (Israeli sky marshal) could take his little Beretta 22 into battle against AK-weilding terrorists and emerge victorious on multiple occasions.

I have to laugh.

Rachamim didn't choose to engage four heavily armed terrorists with his Beretta .22 LR........he HAD to.

That's the weapon that sky marshals are issued because their fights will happen in an airplane cabin and a larger weapon is likely to pierce the aircraft walls.

I only see two gunfights for him.......one a very close range head shot inside an aircraft when he was backed by Mossad agents and disguised as a mechanic and had advantage of surprise.

The other happened on the ground with four terrorists outside the plane. He was the only defender and had to leave the plane to engage them and keep them pinned down until help arrived a few minutes later.

He jumped out and intentionally drew their fire away from the aircraft and its passengers.

His initial shots hit their leader in the head and dropped him. He then exchanged fire and kept them busy--making them unable to move on the aircraft. Swiss police arrived in a couple of minutes.

He was a hero, though.......no doubt.

Have you seen pictures of him? He looks exactly like a James Bond movie actor would look.

But.........you can be sure that as he left that plane to engage.........he was wishing he had an AK-47 or at least an Uzi.

[Metric]

I doubt the sky marshals were under any illusions about the nature of their enemy.

One of those confrontations involved quite a bit of planning and assembly of a team. Rachamim was called out of a university class to join the team, if I remember correctly -- he stopped at his house to pick up his 22 on the way.

I mean, the whole story sounds crazy to the modern mindset where we're used to teasing apart the relative merits of Gold Dot vs HST and +p vs +p+.

Sometimes it's refreshing to see what can be achieved with a different mindset.

[mehavey]

Here's the kind of things the "skews the numbers" . . . .
https://www.aol.com/news/man-shot-13...204357864.html

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Metric

Sometimes it's refreshing to see what can be achieved with a different mindset.

It's not a different mindset.

Sky marshals and Mossad assassins have different equipment needs than the rest of us, that's all.

James Bond used small calibers, too.

Most of his killing was done at distances of inches and feet rather than yards........and head shots were the goal.

[44 AMP]

James Bond used small calibers, too.

A) because Ian Fleming wasn't a "gun guy", and knew very little about them.
B) because small caliber weapons suited the character's primary role. Spy/secret agent, not a gun fighter type. While 007 had a "license to kill" all that meant was he didn't have to wait for permission from his higher authority, and was able to use his own discretion.

The movies turned Bond into an action hero type, when they moved beyond the stories that Fleming wrote.

[jetinteriorguy]

My everyday CC is a Hellcat in 9mm and I feel plenty well covered. But in my vehicle I drive to work with a .357mag Security Six with a 4” barrel just in case.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by The Verminator

It's more like garbage in--garbage out.

It is a fatally flawed and unscientific effort from the beginning.

It concludes that a .32 is more likely to make a one shot stop than a .45 or a .357 Magnum or a .44 Magnum.

It doesn't "conclude"anything. It reports -- and graphs -- statistical data. Any conclusions must be drawn by the reader.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

A) because Ian Fleming wasn't a "gun guy", and knew very little about them.
B) because small caliber weapons suited the character's primary role. Spy/secret agent, not a gun fighter type. While 007 had a "license to kill" all that meant was he didn't have to wait for permission from his higher authority, and was able to use his own discretion.

The movies turned Bond into an action hero type, when they moved beyond the stories that Fleming wrote.

Ian Fleming, a typical Brit, was quoted as saying that firearms details bored him.

Fleming, however, did know the spy business.

He carried a "Baby" Browning .25 himself. Why? An obsession with concealment.

Small guns ruled (except for the mysterious .45 that was a "car gun" in a secret compartment).

When Bond used a Smith .38 Special it was regarded as a large and awesomely powerful weapon. The .45 "car gun" must have seemed like heavy artillery.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

It doesn't "conclude"anything. It reports -- and graphs -- statistical data. Any conclusions must be drawn by the reader.

When the author makes his conclusion in a segment entitled "Conclusion," I tend to think he means it's a conclusion.

[TruthTellers]

I think best is an improper term because any caliber bigger than 9mm is capable of defending yourself, the better word to use than best would be, well, better.

I like the capacity and lower cost of ammo with .40 than .45, I like the power and capacity of 10mm even more than either. .45 ACP isn't my favorite, but I still own it because it has special characteristics that make it useful for the purposes I use it for, but if all I had was one 9mm pistol and had the option of being able to only choose one and it was between a .40, a 10mm, and a .45, the .45 is the last one I would choose.

The OP needs to go into more detail on what he wants and is looking for. Being stuck in a state with 10 rd mags is lame, but I do agree that going with the bigger caliber is the better way to go and is one reason I'm not opposed to .45 GAP other than it being stuck in Glocks. Would be nice if someone would make a P365 like pistol that held 9 or 10 rds of GAP.

[Forte S+W]

You can't go wrong with either, but I recommend .40 S&W for the following reasons...

• Less expensive ammo
• Greater magazine capacity
• More compact frame size
• Better straight-line hard barrier penetration
• Easy conversion to 9mm and .357 SIG with simple barrel swap

[The Happy kaboomer]

In a tight spot. ANY caliber that goes bang bang bang.

[jmr40]

If limited to 10 rounds, buy a smaller 9mm designed with 10 round mags. The Sig 365 or Glock 48 would be excellent choices. There is zero statistical difference between 9mm, 40, 45, or 357. They all work about 85-90% of the time when best loads for each are chosen.

If you just want something different then get either a 10mm or 45. I'm not a 40 fan. Smith makes an excellent 10 round M&P 45 pistol that holds 10 rounds. The G29 in 10mm holds 10 as does the G30 in 45.