Best caliber for self defense

[Jim Watson]

Once upon a time, the 125 grain .357 Magnum was considered the most effective anti-personnel handgun round. But that’s a revolver, eww.
We were told that the .357 Sig was meant to mimic that in an automatic.
Which brings up .38 Super and 9x23Win for the enthusiast.
Me?
I’ll just keep on making do with 9mm P or .45 ACP.

[44 AMP]

Once upon a time, the 125 grain .357 Magnum was considered the most effective anti-personnel handgun round. But that’s a revolver, eww.

See, there's the problem, people don't just want the most effective round, they ALSO want it in the package they want.

They want small and light, for concealment and easy carry, then IF they get that in a sufficiently powerful cartridge, they complain about the recoil.

Or the lack of round capacity, or the size and weight, if the gun is large enough to tame recoil to manageable levels. Oh, and don't forget they want it at a low price.

There's no free lunch...sorry.

I have a pistol that shoots that 125gr .357. Semi auto, 9+1 capacity recoil is not heavy. The GUN is heavy. Blast is fierce. The grip is huge. And the MV is over 1700fps with select handloads from the (nominal) 6" barrel.
No one will choose it as a carry piece, it goes 4.25lbs empty.

It's not "practical" but I like it, as a home defense pistol, I think it would do well, even if you missed, you could beat a grizzly bear to death with it, possibly,...

The real question is not what is the best caliber for self defense, the question is what is the best caliber for self defense in a pistol YOU find acceptable.

And that's going to be as varied as the people answering the question.

[jetinteriorguy]

Or, just carry extra mags. If you have gone through ten rounds that should buy enough time for a quick mag change if you’ve practiced. That being said I do agree the ten round limit is a load of BS and definitely falls under the definition of an infringement.

[4V50 Gary]

Better a hit with a 22 short than a miss with a 9/40/45/50. Shot placement is everything. Don't ever count on any single hit or caliber to stop an assailant.

Charles Henderson's Marine Sniper recounts the story of Gunny Hathcock hitting in the chest a foe with a 30-06. That's the venerable bullet we used in WW I, WW II and Korea.
The shot man responded by charging. Second shot to the chest didn't put him down and he still charged. It was the third shot to the head that dropped him.

[paknheat]

Originally Posted by Tool

All of my handguns have been 9mm. I'm tempted to buy an HK USP with a larger caliber. After all, I live in a state that prevent me from using magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds anyway.

Which one is better? 45 acp or 40 SW?

.357 SIG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[mehavey]

Unless you're just itching for a new gun, stick w/ your 9mm.
Use Federal HST for carry.

... expensive? yes.
But not for life-on-the-line.
and a whole cheaper than a new gun.

.

[paknheat]

Unless you’re just looking for a good reason to buy another gun, I’d give the nod to the 40S&W.

Then buy one in .45acp the very soonest next time.

I understand the FJB people in dc don’t like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[georgehwbush]

maybe; https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperst....cfm/ID/206586



sorry that was out of bounds, it's not 40 or 45 my bad.

[44 AMP]

One thing got me wondering, since we haven't lived in a society where single shot muzzleloaders are our primary means of self defense for nearly two centuries, why the concern with "one shot stops"????

[georgehwbush]

well with pistols it would seem to be a moot point. from a long range perspective it's like white feather said "how many shots are you going to get?" when hunting, a follow up shot may or may not be a "thang"; reguardless of the game you hunt.

[georgehwbush]

and self/home defense is kind of like hunting dangerous game. if the first shot doesn't work the second shot may be theirs, and not yours.... just a thought.

[4V50 Gary]

One thing got me wondering, since we haven't lived in a society where single shot muzzleloaders are our primary means of self defense for nearly two centuries, why the concern with "one shot stops"????

So we can miss more often! Duh.

Physiology, mindset, adrenalin or sythentic drug driven, torniqued like the Moros warriors, armor or something else stopping a projectile (I've heard of bibles, metal mirrors, cigarette cases saving soldiers/people) and a whole host of other factors can have an affect.

The most legitimate reason is mutliple target engagement. Home invaders generally have force of numbers to accomplish their deeds.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 4V50 Gary

The most legitimate reason is multiple target engagement. Home invaders generally have force of numbers to accomplish their deeds.

This is fact. Doing the same with car jackings.

They are not only coming in force of numbers, they're more sophisticated and experienced.

[JohnKSa]

One thing got me wondering, since we haven't lived in a society where single shot muzzleloaders are our primary means of self defense for nearly two centuries, why the concern with "one shot stops"????

The idea is to try to cut down on the variables involved to try to make sense of the data. By looking at people only shot once, it supposedly maximizes any differences due to caliber and minimizes other effects.

The comparison between calibers of the number of people shot in this study totally throws off it’s credibility.

The problem is that people have been doing this kind of study for a long time and the results never seem show a clear winner amongst the service pistol calibers. At some point, it's time to stop picking the studies apart because we don't like the results and start thinking about why the results keep coming out the same...

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

You have to be careful about dismissing a "study" based on the results. Sometimes studies tell us things we did not expect, or things we don't initially believe. If you think about it, if studies always only told us what we expected, it would be pointless to do them.

I'm certainly not saying that this study is flawless or that the results should be taken as gospel--just cautioning against trying to dismiss a study simply because one doesn't like what it suggests.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

One thing got me wondering, since we haven't lived in a society where single shot muzzleloaders are our primary means of self defense for nearly two centuries, why the concern with "one shot stops"????

What's the guarantee you'll get a second shot?

[44 AMP]

What's the guarantee you'll get a second shot?

The same as it always has been, and the same as the guarantee that you'll get a first shot, or that the first shot will be enough.

None.

Though I think we are much better off defensively today than when the very fastest guys could get off a second shot in about 20 seconds.

Today's self defense handguns can fire a second shot as fast as you can pull the trigger. Faster than many can get back on target.

well with pistols it would seem to be a moot point. from a long range perspective it's like white feather said "how many shots are you going to get?"

Long range and legally valid personal self defense are seldom the same in the civilian world.

Studies are useful things, at least the ones that accurately report the data found, and yes, sometimes they do have unanticipated results. But when there is a result far enough outside the expected, one need to find out why. Skewed data?? some factor(s) present that were not present in other findings??

When a small caliber seems to out perform a larger one, in percentage of effectiveness, one needs to ask, why.

[JohnKSa]

But when there is a result far enough outside the expected, one need to find out why. Skewed data?? some factor(s) present that were not present in other findings??

One should always be sure to include the possibility that there's not a problem with the results but with the expectations.

Here's a thought experiment.

Let's imagine that there is a topic that is of extreme interest to many people--to those who find it important, they consider it literally a matter of life and death. It is also true that it is a topic of interest to many large and well-funded organizations. The topic comes down to whether A or B is better. It doesn't matter what 'A' is, it doesn't matter what 'B' is, we just want to know which is better.

Because it's of interest, people study it. Organizations study it. Data is collected, studies are performed. This goes on for years. The problem is that no one can call a winner. People can quantify differences between A and B, in fact that is done to excruciating detail. But none of that seems to help. When it comes right down to practical performance in the real world, as opposed to parameters measured during controlled testing, no one seems to be able to show that one is better than the other.

People keep trying. Organizations keep trying. Decades pass. Still no one can prove that one is better than the other in terms of pure practical application in the real world. People hold strong opinions, but the data collected and analysis performed doesn't support declaring a clear winner.

Now, here's the part where the thought comes in. Which conclusion makes the most sense?

1. A and B provide significantly different performance in terms of pure practical application in spite of the fact that no one has been able to prove it. The lack of ability to show a practical difference means nothing, we just know that one is significantly better than the other in spite of the lack of proof.

2. If A and B really do perform differently in terms of pure practical application, the difference can't be significant or it would not be so difficult to find the evidence. The lack of ability to show the difference in the real world after decades of trying is adequate evidence that the difference can't be significant.

[Nathan]

IMHO, the best caliber is whatever you can afford and can shoot proficiently.

What are the criteria and minimum acceptable performance for those? How do they balance against each other. For example, I believe most skilled shooters would have high proficiency with a 22LR and it is $3-$5 per 50 vs a 44 mag which many would have medium to low proficiency and $70 per 50. So we should all get 22’s?

The most important factor though is an operator of said firearm that can place shots into an assailant accurately under a high stress situation. A calm, resolute, good marksman with a .22 is more dangerous than a hysterical, person that never trains with their gun and has a 9mm or .45.

Is this another vote for 22?

So my question is: With what pistol/caliber are you most likely to hit what you intend to hit?

22LR definitely.

I’m not really picking at this, people to consider the balance between practical accuracy, shot-to-shot speed and bullet performance.

To me those are what gun/cartridge can I shoot 0.33s or better splits, place all shots on a paper plate at 7 yds and is the best bullet performance I’ll carry. Obviously cost of ownership keeps some rounds out of there.

[The Verminator]

Hmmmmm.........and if you shoot the attacker five times with your .22 as he's shooting you once with his .45...........

You lose.

Why do we focus on the "one-shot stop?"

Because that's the gold standard........that's the one that means you win.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

You have to be careful about dismissing a "study" based on the results. Sometimes studies tell us things we did not expect, or things we don't initially believe.

And then there's the study that tells us something that's flat out wrong.

This is similar to what happens when a witness in a criminal trial is caught in a lie.

Suddenly his testimony is ALL suspect even if much of it may be valid.

Good researchers eliminate the ridiculous and stick with solid facts.

[Frank Ettin]

There is data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology. What all that shows with regard to self defense could be summarized as follows:

1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.
   
   
4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.
   
   
5. And that's probably as good as we can do.

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

• The goal is to stop the assailant.
  
  
• There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:
  
  
  • psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
    
    
  • massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
    
    
  • breaking major skeletal support structures
    
    
  • damaging the central nervous system.
  
  Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.
  
  Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.
  
  Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.
  
  The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.
  
  So as a rule of thumb --
  
  
  • More holes are better than fewer holes.
    
    
  • Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
    
    
  • Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
    
    
  • Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
    
    
  • There are no magic bullets.
    
    
  • There are no guarantees.
  
  
• With regard to the issue of psychological stops see
  
  
  • this study, entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates set out in the table headed "Here are the results."
    
    As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):

    Originally Posted by Greg Ellifritz

    
    ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...
    
    In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

    • There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.
      
      
      • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.
        
        
      • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.
        
        
      • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.
        
        
      • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.
        
        
      • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.
      
      
    • The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.
      
      
      • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.
        
        
      • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate
      
      
    • And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.
      
      
    • From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.
  
  
  • Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:

    ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.
    
    The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

  • And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":
    
    
    • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):

      In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

    • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):

      The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

    • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):

      Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

  
  And sometimes a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:

  ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....

[44 AMP]

Hmmmmm.........and if you shoot the attacker five times with your .22 as he's shooting you once with his .45...........

You lose.

Maybe...probably?....possibly for sure, but not a given. Unless you include information about where the hits are, and what they do. Unless specified otherwise, we are free to assume all kinds of different scenarios, including ones where the .22 shooter "wins". There have been cases where that actually happened. The psychological stop is still a stop. Just not one that can be relied on to happen. Then there's the possibility of am actual physical stop, due to incapacitation. And that's where information about the actual hits matters. Say the .22 shooter gets 5 hits, one in the .45 shooter's left eye, two in the throat (putting holes in vital veins or arteries) one in the upper chest and one in the belly, and the .45 shooters one shot hits the .22 shooter in the outer edge of the left bicep.

That would most likely be a "win" for the .22 shooter, don't you think??

Why do we focus on the "one-shot stop?"

Yes, why DO we focus on the "one-shot stop??"

If the reasoning is "one shot is all you might get", then why don't people say "First shot stop"?? or "First hit stop" Isn't it nearly always one shot that actually does the stop?? When that one shot that does the stop is the 2nd, or 5th (or 11th ) HIT, it doesn't get counted as a "one shot stop".

What about cases where the first shot actually stops the attack but the defender doesn't realize that and puts several more shots into the attacker, before they do??

Just some things to consider,,,

Same sort of thing goes for various "studies", you rarely (like almost never) get the full information about the data used. Consider all the things that could be involved in the "raw data" that get tossed out, or "filtered out" because of the perameters set by the researchers, or simply not available to the researchers, which, if included, might have a significant bearing on the results.

Showing HOW he numbers work out (as statistical percentages) doesn't tell us WHY the numbers worked out that way, unless the researchers make a point of explaining that, which, they rarely do.

As a hypothetical example, say you have a study where the data shows the .32auto rated 71% one shot stops, and the 9mm rated 58% one shot stops. Not what one would expect, but the data (as far as it goes) is clear and the math is correct. Why did the results turn out that way???

Some POSSIBLE explanations are sample size, and the various and numerous factors involved in the actual shootings studied.

To illustrate my point I'm going to use some extreme numbers, to make the concept easier to see.

Say you've got 800 cases of 9mm shootings, and only 136 for the .32 auto. That can have an effect on percentages. Say the 9mm data covers shootings distances from 0 to 20 yards, and the .32 data is 0 to 15 FEET. Another point which could have a significant effect on the statistics.

Those are just two of the host of factors that can affect the statistical results, but we don't see those things, when all we get given is the percentages on a graph and the conclusions in accompanying text.

The point I'm trying to make is that studies should not be accepted as holy writ, at face value as accurate predictors of anything more than general trends and sometimes not even that.

I know of a case where a guy had to defend himself two separate times, one time, he used 9mm FMJ and the other time he used .45ACP FMJ.

His results were identical. "I shot him twice, and he fell down". For that guy, the effectiveness of both rounds was 100%.

They did the job he relied on them to do, so he considered them equal. We know the common self defense rounds all work, and we know that sometimes, all have failed. There is no magic bullet or caliber.

In the end, don't all the statistics boil down to 50/50? either it works, or it doesn't, and that depends on ALL the factors and varies, sometimes hugely between each individual shooting.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The point I'm trying to make is that studies should not be accepted as holy writ, at face value as accurate predictors of anything more than general trends and sometimes not even that.

Yes.......although we should take care not to tar all research with the same brush as the "research" offered up in this thread.

It was unacceptably amateurish.

There are plenty of good studies around that give us good information.

The only caution is that we have to examine them with care before accepting.

[JohnKSa]

There are plenty of good studies around that give us good information.

Excellent. Can you provide some information about them?

I've been interested in this topic for decades. I would love to see something that, based on the outcome of real-world shootings, points to a clear winner out of the service pistol performance class.

Urey Patrick's paper, back in 1989 contained an offhand statement suggesting that caliber differences might make a difference in the outcome of 1% of shootings. I thought that was interesting given the context of the paper. It's been a long time since I read that paper for the first time, and I've not seen anyone provide any data to contradict his offhand estimate. In fact, I think, if anything, he may have overestimated the effect...

Please note the emphasis in the statement--"based on the outcome of real-world shootings". It is critical. I'm well aware of the measurable/quantifiable differences in the various calibers, whether they are measured in penetration, expansion, momentum, energy, power factor, TKO, RII, etc., etc. Those are all interesting, but if it's not possible to show that those differences are having a significant effect on the outcome of real world shootings, they are meaningless.

What everyone really wants to know is how much of an advantage/disadvantage they will have in a gunfight based on the terminal performance of the service pistol caliber they choose compared to the other ones they could choose. That's where the rubber meets the road.

In the end, don't all the statistics boil down to 50/50? either it works, or it doesn't, and that depends on ALL the factors and varies, sometimes hugely between each individual shooting.

If there really is a significant difference, why can't anyone make it show up when they analyze real world shootings?

How can the difference be significant if it's so hard to see in the actual results that no one can find it?

How long should we go on making excuses for why something we claim is significant doesn't seem to have a significant effect on the outcome of gunfights?

How long are we supposed to go on choosing a winner even though it doesn't seem to provide any advantage in real-world gunfights?

[jar]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Excellent. Can you provide some information about them?

I've been interested in this topic for decades. I would love to see something that, based on the outcome of real-world shootings, points to a clear winner out of the service pistol performance class.

Urey Patrick's paper, back in 1989 contained an offhand statement suggesting that caliber differences might make a difference in the outcome of 1% of shootings. I thought that was interesting given the context of the paper. It's been a long time since I read that paper for the first time, and I've not seen anyone provide any data to contradict his offhand estimate. In fact, I think, if anything, he may have overestimated the effect...

Please note the emphasis in the statement--"based on the outcome of real-world shootings". It is critical. I'm well aware of the measurable/quantifiable differences in the various calibers, whether they are measured in penetration, expansion, momentum, energy, power factor, TKO, RII, etc., etc. Those are all interesting, but if it's not possible to show that those differences are having a significant effect on the outcome of real world shootings, they are meaningless.

What everyone really wants to know is how much of an advantage/disadvantage they will have in a gunfight based on the terminal performance of the service pistol caliber they choose compared to the other ones they could choose. That's where the rubber meets the road.

Amen Brother, preach the gospel.

The other key point is that the shooters are even less uniform and predictable than the cartridges.

There are days when my body responds to orders with "It ain't gonna happen." Days when my body simply is not going to rack that slide, perform the failure day, hold the handgun steady, return quickly to POI for followup with many of my handguns.

On those days my Ruger LCPII 22lr Lite Rack or Walther CCP 380 M2 or Walther PK380 that my body says "Can do" have a far higher likelihood of stopping an assailant than my 1911 or P220 or Highway Patrolman that my body says "It ain't gonna happen".

Self Defense is a lot like real estate; the three most important things are location, Location, LOCATION.

Hits on target count. Multiple hits on target get a higher score. Multiple hits on target rapidly are even better.

Even for the same individual there really is no single right answer and he best we can do is to find the solution available to use that is appropriate for that individual on that day in that moment.