while that may be true, the average number of shots required to incapacitate those who were succesfully incapacitated was actally less for the .22. The perspective i am coming from is not saying that the .22 is just as effecitve as the 9mm (the type I most often carry). rather it is re-assurance from all of the naysayers who attempt to tell me that i can't stop somebody with a .22 and I might as well be using a rock, etc. clearly the statistics show that the .22 is quite a deadly weapon, and is nearly as effective as other calibers (when compared to a rock as the alternative).
Originally Posted by OPFOR
also keep in mind that i chose a gun when leaving the house based on what i am wearing, what is currently available (my wife carries too) and what the risk factor is. If I'm driving 1 mile down the road to the grocery store (in the nice part of town) and i'm wearing shorts and shirt that make it difficult to conceal my Glock, then I take one of the smaller calibers. If I'm going to be in downton Dallas at 2 o'clock in the morning, I'm bringing the Glock and that is all there is to it.
Interesting read, thanks for posting!
Your stats are much more believable than the Marshall stats, especially in regards to the "one shot stop" rating.
Not my stats, not my work, just passing it along for general interest. I don't think it's the end all-be all of caliber discussion but it is interesting.
Thanks for posting a very interesting read, just proves that no matter what caliber is used getting shot will ruin someone’s day.
Its an interesting read but it does not account for one of the most important factors of a defensive shooting.
That being the state of mind that the person being shot is in.
For instance, someone that is on drugs,is drunk, is a highly agitated state of mind, someone in excellent physical conditioning,tough minded mental conditioning, there are many factors that play into incapacitation, none of which seem to be taken into account here.
I also tend to think that the differences in caliber is somewhat minimized. As one that has been hunting his whole life, I can tell you that anything that gets shot with a .44 magnum is going to display a heck of a lot more tissue damage than something that is shot with a .22.
Same goes for buckshot. I've seen deer that you could barely tell were even shot, other than the fact that they were laying in front of you, dead.
A slug on the other hand, will tear some meat up and blow bone all over the place.
Its also a fact that a FMJ will do less damage than a JHP. Even so, the FMJ's have killed a heck of a lot of people in various wars, so we know that it works.
I think that if the author would have noted what style bullets were used in the shootings, the article would have more real value.
The caliber discussion all started with David and Goliath...you know, pebble at high speed. Now if Goliath had been coming down off a meth high, things might have been different. The poachers in Africa can bring down big critters with the 7.62X39, but no experienced PH will hang around a pachy or Cape Buff without a rifle chambered in something that starts with a 4 or 5.
There are a number of things that could skew these numbers. For one, it appears from the description that this study included both civilians and police shootings. I didn't see anything said that it was only police shootings. With the 9mm, for example, how many of those shootings could have been made with FMJ ammo? A 9mm is going to be less effective in many instances with FMJ ammo, than it will with a good controlled expansion JHP bullet. That could easily lower the 9mm's effectiveness.
Likewise, did any of the shootings in the database include shootings of police officers? If they did, then body armour worn by the officer could skew the data too.
Despite everything, his data would seem to clearly confirm the determination by Marshall and Sanow decades ago that the .357 is King. So to me, it valids their conclusions.
If one took Fackler's theories about large caliber and momentum being the key factors to achieve good performance, then the fast 357 calibers should not do well in street shootings. But that certainly does not appear to be the case when shooting data is looked at. And a significant number of Law Enforcement agencies appear to be jumping on the 357 Sig bandwagon these days.
I had the same observation about this report. Nothing in it to account for what type of bullets were being used. So much FMJ 9mm ammo is sold on the market, for example, that I would imagine that a lot of civilian shootings involving 9mm would be with FMJ bullets.
Originally Posted by HotGuns
Interesting.... Confirms my suspicions that just about any round that can be placed in a vital area and backed by enough horse power will do pretty much the same thing that the larger calibers can.
Good read, appreciate it.
Originally Posted by 10thmtn
Absolutely! If the thug was worth one, he's worth a couple more, regardless of the caliber. :hand10:
Good stuff. Thanks for posting.
More importantly getting shot 2.2 times is even worse!
Originally Posted by msgt/ret
I actually think this is interesting, and it renews my faith in the 38 special, seeing as it performed as well or better than the 9mm.
I think now that the warm weather is getting here my snub nose may be getting a little more carry time.
You came to that conclusion based on this data? The .357 results are statistically invalid as they combine two completely different loads, the .357 SIG and .357 Magnum. The 125gr loading that they have in common is separated by 100 fps and 80 ft-lbs KE. We might as well group in all shots taken with the 9mm 127gr +P+ round as the difference between it and the 125gr .357 SIG loading is also 100 fps and 60 ft-lbs KE, so technically the 127gr +P+ loading is more alike to the SIG load than the Magnum load, ballistically speaking.
Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN
I reckon the number of LEA's switching to .357 SIG is slight rather than "significant." The majority of LEA's are very happy with the .40 S&W, including all the cities in the Greater Phoenix area.
And last but not least... Yes, Fackler preferred slower, heavier loads. However, his "protege," Dr. Roberts has no aversion to the middleweight loads along with the heavyweight loads in most cases, thanks to modern hollow point technology.
Take a look at the 9mm chart:
Barnes XPB 115gr HP (35515) loaded by Cor-Bon (DPX09115)
Winchester Partition Gold 124gr JHP (RA91P)
Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester Ranger-T 127gr JHP +P+ (RA9TA)
Winchester Ranger-T 147gr JHP (RA9T)
Winchester Bonded 147gr JHP (RA9B/Q4364)
Speer Gold Dot 124gr JHP +P (53617)
Speer Gold Dot 147gr JHP (53619)
Remington Golden Saber 147gr JHP (GS9MMC)
Federal Tactical 124gr JHP (LE9T1)
Federal Tactical 135gr JHP +P (LE9T5)
Federal HST 147gr JHP (P9HST2)
There are actually more middleweight loads (7) than heavy, slow loads (5).
The point here is this: what matters is the terminal ballistics testing, not the weight or speed of the load. If the load penetrates 12"-18," has uniform and consistent expansion, and does not plug through denim/heavy clothing, etc., then it is an acceptable SD load! :image035:
OK, I was just doing a little number crunching on his data and I think I found something I do not understand.
If you look at the data for each caliber, if you divide the total number of hits by the number of people shot, you always get the value that he list as the total number of shots to incapaciatation.
This means that every person was incapacitated and no shots were not incapacitating.
Does this seem right? Shouldn't there be a few people in this study that were shot but not incapacitated, especially considering these numbers included police officers involved in shootings where hopefully the police officers won. I can understand if a BG was shot and not incapacitated, his data would not end up in the survey because he isn't available for interview, but a police officer that suffered a shot to an arm or leg should show up as not incapacitated.