An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

Buckeye Firearms Association ^ | 8 July,2011 | Greg Ellifritz

[marktwain]

I've been interested in firearm stopping power for a very long time. I remember reading Handguns magazine back in the late 1980s when Evan Marshall was writing articles about his stopping power studies. When Marshall's first book came out in 1992, I ordered it immediately, despite the fact that I was a college student and really couldn't afford its $39 price tag. Over the years I bought all of the rest of Marshall's books as well as anything else I could find on the subject. I even have a first edition of Gunshot Injuries by Louis Lagarde published in 1915. Are any of these better than another?

Every source I read has different recommendations. Some say Marshall's data is genius. Some say it is statistically impossible. Some like big heavy bullets. Some like lighter, faster bullets. There isn't any consensus. The more I read, the more confused I get.

One thing I remember reading that made a lot of sense to me was an article by Massad Ayoob. He came out with his own stopping power data around the time Marshall published Handgun Stopping Power. In the article, Ayoob took his critics to task. He suggested that if people didn't believe his data, they should collect their own and do their own analysis. That made sense to me. So that's just what I did. I always had a slight problem with the methodology of Marshall and Sanow's work. For consistency purposes, they ONLY included hits to the torso and ONLY included cases where the person was hit with just a single round. Multiple hits screwed up their data, so they excluded them. This lead to an unrealistically high stopping power percentage, because it factored out many of the cases where a person didn't stop! I wanted to look at hits anywhere on the body and get a realistic idea of actual stopping power, no matter how many hits it took to get it. So I started collecting data.

Over a 10-year period, I kept track of stopping power results from every shooting I could find. I talked to the participants of gunfights, read police reports, attended autopsies, and scoured the newspapers, magazines, and Internet for any reliable accounts of what happened to the human body when it was shot.

I documented all of the data I could; tracking caliber, type of bullet (if known), where the bullet hit and whether or not the person was incapacitated. I also tracked fatalities, noting which bullets were more likely to kill and which were not. It was an exhaustive project, but I'm glad I did it and I'm happy to report the results of my study here.

Before I get to the details, I must give a warning. I don't have any dog in this fight! I don't sell ammo. I'm not being paid by any firearm or ammunition manufacturer. I carry a lot of different pistols for self defense. Within the last 2 weeks, I've carried a .22 magnum, a .380 auto, a .38 spl revolver, 3 different 9mm autos and a .45 auto. I don't have an axe to grind. If you are happy with your 9mm, I'm happy for you. If you think that everyone should be carrying a .45 (because they don't make a .46), I'm cool with that too. I'm just reporting the data. If you don't like it, take Mr. Ayoob.s advice...do a study of your own.

A few notes on terminology...

Since it was my study, I got to determine the variables and their definitions. Here's what I looked at:

- Number of people shot

- Number of rounds that hit

- 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.

I also excluded all cases of accidental shootings or suicides. Every shot in this study took place during a military battle or an altercation with a criminal.

- What percentage of shooting incidents resulted in fatalities. For this, I included only hits to the head or torso.

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

- Accuracy. What percentage of hits was in the head or torso. I tracked this to check if variations could affect stopping power. For example, if one caliber had a huge percentage of shootings resulting in arm hits, we may expect that the stopping power of that round wouldn’t look as good as a caliber where the majority of rounds hit the head.

- One shot stop percentage - number of incapacitations divided by the number of hits the person took. Like Marshall's number, I only included hits to the torso or head in this number.

- Percentage of people who were immediately stopped with one hit to the head or torso

Here are the results.

.25ACP

# of people shot - 68

# of hits - 150

% of hits that were fatal - 25%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.2

% of people who were not incapacitated - 35%

One-shot-stop % - 30%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 62%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 49%

.22 (short, long and long rifle)

# of people shot - 154

# of hits - 213

% of hits that were fatal - 34%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.38

% of people who were not incapacitated - 31%

One-shot-stop % - 31%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 60%

.32 (both .32 Long and .32 ACP)

# of people shot - 25

# of hits - 38

% of hits that were fatal - 21%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.52

% of people who were not incapacitated - 40%

One-shot-stop % - 40%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 78%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 72%

.380 ACP

# of people shot - 85

# of hits - 150

% of hits that were fatal - 29%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.76

% of people who were not incapacitated - 16%

One-shot-stop % - 44%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 62%

.38 Special

# of people shot - 199

# of hits - 373

% of hits that were fatal - 29%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.87

% of people who were not incapacitated - 17%

One-shot-stop % - 39%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 55%

9mm Luger

# of people shot - 456

# of hits - 1121

% of hits that were fatal - 24%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.45

% of people who were not incapacitated - 13%

One-shot-stop % - 34%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 74%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 47%

.357 (both magnum and Sig)

# of people shot - 105

# of hits - 179

% of hits that were fatal - 34%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.7

% of people who were not incapacitated - 9%

One-shot-stop % - 44%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 81%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 61%

.40 S&W

# of people shot - 188

# of hits - 443

% of hits that were fatal - 25%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.36

% of people who were not incapacitated - 13%

One-shot-stop % - 45%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 52%

.45 ACP

# of people shot - 209

# of hits - 436

% of hits that were fatal - 29%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08

% of people who were not incapacitated - 14%

One-shot-stop % - 39%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 85%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 51%

.44 Magnum

# of people shot - 24

# of hits - 41

% of hits that were fatal - 26%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.71

% of people who were not incapacitated - 13%

One-shot-stop % - 59%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 88%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 53%

Rifle (all Centerfire)

# of people shot - 126

# of hits - 176

% of hits that were fatal - 68%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.4

% of people who were not incapacitated - 9%

One-shot-stop % - 58%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 81%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 80%

Shotgun (All, but 90% of results were 12 gauge)

# of people shot - 146

# of hits - 178

% of hits that were fatal - 65%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.22

% of people who were not incapacitated - 12%

One-shot-stop % - 58%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 84%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 86%

Discussion

I really would have liked to break it down by individual bullet type, but I didn't have enough data points to reach a level of statistical significance. Getting accurate data on nearly 1800 shootings was hard work. I couldn't imagine breaking it down farther than what I did here. I also believe the data for the .25, .32 and .44 magnum should be viewed with suspicion. I simply don't have enough data (in comparison to the other calibers) to draw an accurate comparison. I reported the data I have, but I really don't believe that a .32 ACP incapacitates people at a higher rate than the .45 ACP!

One other thing to look at is the 9mm data. A huge number (over half) of 9mm shootings involved ball ammo. I think that skewed the results of the study in a negative manner. One can reasonable expect that FMJ ammo will not stop as well as a state of the art expanding bullet. I personally believe that the 9mm is a better stopper than the numbers here indicate, but you can make that decision for yourself based on the data presented.

Some interesting findings:

I think the most interesting statistic is the percentage of people who stopped with one shot to the torso or head. There wasn't much variation between calibers. Between the most common defensive calibers (.38, 9mm, .40, and .45) there was a spread of only eight percentage points. No matter what gun you are shooting, you can only expect a little more than half of the people you shoot to be immediately incapacitated by your first hit.

The average number of rounds until incapacitation was also remarkably similar between calibers. All the common defensive calibers required around 2 rounds on average to incapacitate. Something else to look at here is the question of how fast can the rounds be fired out of each gun. The .38 SPL probably has the slowest rate of fire (long double action revolver trigger pulls and stout recoil in small revolvers) and the fewest rounds fired to get an incapacitation (1.87). Conversely the 9mm can probably be fired fastest of the common calibers and it had the most rounds fired to get an incapacitation (2.45). The .40 (2.36) and the .45 (2.08) split the difference. It is my personal belief that there really isn't much difference between each of these calibers. It is only the fact that some guns can be fired faster than others that causes the perceived difference in stopping power. If a person takes an average of 5 seconds to stop after being hit, the defender who shoots a lighter recoiling gun can get more hits in that time period. It could be that fewer rounds would have stopped the attacker (given enough time) but the ability to fire more quickly resulted in more hits being put onto the attacker. It may not have anything to do with the stopping power of the round.

Another data piece that leads me to believe that the majority of commonly carried defensive rounds are similar in stopping power is the fact that all four have very similar failure rates. If you look at the percentage of shootings that did not result in incapacitation, the numbers are almost identical. The .38, 9mm, .40, and .45 all had failure rates of between 13% and 17%.

Some people will look at this data and say "He's telling us all to carry .22s". That's not true. Although this study showed that the percentages of people stopped with one shot are similar between almost all handgun cartridges, there's more to the story. 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.

One other factor to consider is that the majority of these shootings did NOT involve shooting through intermediate barriers, cover or heavy clothing. If you anticipate having to do this in your life (i.e. you are a police officer and may have to shoot someone in a car), again, I would lean towards the larger or more powerful rounds.

What I believe that my numbers show is that in the majority of shootings, the person shot merely gives up without being truly incapacitated by the bullet. In such an event, almost any bullet will perform admirably. If you want to be prepared to deal with someone who won't give up so easily, or you want to be able to have good performance even after shooting through an intermediate barrier, I would skip carrying the "mouse gun" .22s, .25s and .32s.

Now compare the numbers of the handgun calibers with the numbers generated by the rifles and shotguns. For me there really isn't a stopping power debate. All handguns suck! If you want to stop someone, use a rifle or shotgun!

What matters even more than caliber is shot placement. Across all calibers, if you break down the incapacitations based on where the bullet hit you will see some useful information.

Head shots = 75% immediate incapacitation Torso shots = 41% immediate incapacitation Extremity shots (arms and legs) = 14% immediate incapacitation.

No matter which caliber you use, you have to hit something important in order to stop someone!

Conclusion

This study took me a long time and a lot of effort to complete. Despite the work it took, I'm glad I did it. 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. I've stopped worrying about trying to find the "ultimate" bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough "stopping power." Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important.

Take a look at the data. I hope it helps you decide what weapon to carry. No matter which gun you choose, pick one that is reliable and train with it until you can get fast accurate hits. Nothing beyond that really matters!

Greg Ellifritz is the full time firearms and defensive tactics training officer for a central Ohio police department. He holds instructor or master instructor certifications in more than 75 different weapon systems, defensive tactics programs and police specialty areas. Greg has a master's degree in Public Policy and Management and is an instructor for both the Ohio Peace Officer's Training Academy and the Tactical Defense Institute. He can be reached at Greg1095@yahoo.com

[MikeSteelBe]

Platt fought and killed with a collapsed lung. It’s not a stretch to believe that Army Ranger school physically conditioned him well enough to to do that. Matix was a marine.

I see you point about the mental aspect, because training would not be safe if it were truly life threatening.

[Squantos]

Thanks for the kind words sir.... Hope yer well an that super redhawk keeps ya safe on the trail.

Ever look at Garrett Hammerheads for that caliber ?
.
I have a .500 linebaugh built on a old ruger bisley. I like it yet been packing a glock long slide 10mm aftermarket barrel with a supported chamber. Very fast shooter for cats, cinnamon bears an wolves in areas I fish or camp an go wheeling. The 50GI as you state fills the daily carry at home.

Stay safe....

[progunner]

In my humble opinion the round with excellent STOPPING power, would be the 45ACP, 210 grain bowling pim match bullet propelled with 5.5grams of Winchester 231 smokeless powder. I cast my own bullets, and reload hulls that I save after every PIN MATCH or practice session. This round is definetly a MAN STOPPER. Trust me and I'm quite confident that most pin match competiters would agree with me...

In Liberty.

[Gilbo_3]

heheheh...Im sure that the individual being shot, and his particular parts inventory, has a *perfect* load in mass vs velocity...

but until i begin using dimes for rapid fire drills, and hittin em 100%, i'll stick with a lil more diameter vs a few more fps...8^}

im bettin in another hundred yrs we'll still be comparin .45 to all others...

[freepersup]

Thanks for the tip on Garrett's stuff. Impressive data and top quality too. No doubt about it, Garrett has the science nailed down on hard cast blunt tipped ammo.

In hindsight, your auto 50 is more or less an answer to my desire to see the .454 married to an auto frame, just a tad bigger.

To state the obvious- accurate/disciplined shot placement is what's crucial while under attack from man or beast. Likewise the weapon's caliber isn't too far behind in second place. 12 ga., 44 mag., spear, 8,000lb dodge ram truck, moab, whatever it takes to make it back to camp in one piece.

The sandman is knocking... good night to you sir.

[Stonewall Jackson]

A few years ago I was hunting rabbits with some friends and one of them accidentally shot himself in the foot while climbing over a fence. Although it was only a .22LR, it still managed to break two bones and chip a third. Kevin was in such pain that we had to bring the truck up through the field and help him climb into it. It did a real number on him.

On the other hand, another friend was shot by a 9mm while responding to a domestic disturbance call. Jim was escorting the husband out of the house to try and calm things down when the wife pulled out a gun and opened fire. She was aiming for her husband, but ended up hitting Jim in the upper arm instead. Jim went to the hospital, had the wound cleaned and bandaged, and was back at the station, filling out an incident report, within an hour.

[hiredhand]

I do remember reading that one of those guys was badly wounded like that before just running out of steam. I volunteer for the U.S. Army's Robin Sage program... which is the last segment of their SF training. The training cadre are all combat seasoned SF soldiers and have done multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq and "other" places. One evening we were talking about student attrition rates in the program from various factors... and how their training prepares them for the various stresses that they'll encounter. But finally one older Sgt 1st Class spoke up and said, "There's NOTHING that can prepare you for some bastard who pops out of nowhere CLOSE with a gun or some type of explosive and tries to KILL you!" The room got really quiet after that and everybody (including the rest of the cadre) just pondered it for awhile.

I'll go with you on the physical aspect though. Physical conditioning can make a BIG difference.

[hiredhand]

im bettin in another hundred yrs we'll still be comparin .45 to all others...

I'm willing to bet too brother, but I'm personally hoping that we'll be beating swords into plowshares (Isaiah 2:4) before the next hundred years is over with. :-)

[xone]

ph

[umbagi]

The trick is to choose a bullet which transfers all of that energy to the target without over or under-penetration.

Bingo. All the energy a bullet carries on exiting the target is utterly wasted or misapplied (sometimes with regrettable consequences).

Depending on the cartridge and load and duty/application, I "sorta" disagree with the author's dismissal of light but hot HP loads. The life you save may be the sweet little granny in the next shotgun house over.

City cops (was one for several years) vs. rural county deputies (was one for a little over a year) vs. "personal security providers" (was one until I got sick of it, about six months). Different loads for different roads, you might say...

[Salamander]

Funny that a 9mm was mentioned.

/looks away, innocently

BerettaFetishMander

[Salamander]

Dayum, Mr Rogers...things sure have gone to hell in *your* wonderful-day neighborhood.

:)

[Salamander]

I dunno.

Whatsa hangun’ with chu?

:)

[trebb]

My brain fart - used the term “clip” when Mag is correct. Had several threads going on different topics and never stopped to think I was using wrong term - even after your pic that made it obvious.

[riverrunner]

Shooting bowling pins has no relationship to self defense besides being accurate with your rounds.

Bullets shot into wood behave totally different then those shot into live flesh.

[Gilbo_3]

great thought on on the plowshares...but i believe we must first acquire a LOT of cloaks from our 'neighbors'...Luke 22:36...

BLOAT...8^}

[ASA Vet]

Brain farts happen. At least they have no odor.

[hiredhand]

Luke 22:36 is where we're at now. Isaiah 2:4 is where we want to be.

I've often wondered about Luke 22:36. I've read that it wasn't uncommon for a person to only have a single cloak. If this is so, then Jesus was asking for a difficult thing, especially in a place where people traveled on foot, and stayed over night in lower temperatures that could kill. I just read a rather ridiculous article explaining why the sword wasn't a literal sword, but rather the truth of Jesus' teachings.

Jesus addressed two types of person in Luke 22:36...the poor man, and the man with money. He told the one with cash to use cash, and for the one with a beggar's bag to sell his cloak, because that one was poor and had no money. In the KJV, "scrip" refers to the Greek word "pera" (Strongs G4082 pera pay'-rah). Strongs says that this word means a wallet, or leather pouch for food. The ISA (Interlinear Scripture Analyzer) says "beggar's bag".

Also, there's the issue of this sword. If you Google search it, a LOT of people say that it's not a literal sword. In Luke 22:36 the Greek for "sword" is machaira (Strongs G3162 machaira makh'-ahee-rah). Strongs says, "a knife, i.e. dirk; figuratively, war, judicial punishment." There's a note in Strongs though that says, "KJV: sword", meaning merely that the KJV translated it as "sword".

However, jump up to Revelation 2:6 where Jesus says, -

Re 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

THIS "sword" is different than the one he was talking about in Luke 22:36! The Greek for this sword is rhomphaia (Strongs G4501 rhomphaia hrom-fah'-yah). Strongs also states that it's a word probably of foreign origin. However, it also states that this object is "a sabre, i.e. a long and broad cutlass (any weapon of the kind, literally or figuratively)."

I'm not rewriting God's Word here, but the ISA puts the Greek sentence structure into plain English, and to put it just as plainly as it can be put, Luke 22:36 would read like this -

"He then said to them, "But now to the one who has a money bag (purse), let him take (pick) it up! Likewise also the one who has a beggars bag having no cloak, let him sell it and buy a sword"."

I personally doubt that the sword of Luke 22:36 is figurative. It's not logical that a poor man should sell his cloak to "purchase" what translates figuratively to "war or judicial punishment - machaira".

But I know one thing, and that is that this verse is largely misused by both pacifists, and people who just want to justify violence. :-) God's Word is totally focused on HIS reputation, and it could be that this is simply misunderstood at this time.

My own personal (possibly incorrect) take on it is that we are wise (prudent) to have a sword among us in the house. But we're certainly not going to overcome principalities with it. :-) It's plainly described that this world will be handed over to a great evil during the end, and we're headed in that direction NOW. But God doesn't want us to have arsenals of weapons and stockpiles of ammo. A few are sufficient, just as Jesus said. This doesn't authorize us to be whacking bad-guys either. But the right of self defense, and forbearance of weapons is a biblical principle, simply reiterated (I believe) by Jesus with these very few words He says about it.

Sorry this was a bit long...I didn't mean to hijack the thread into a bible study. :-)

[OKSooner]

I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but I gotta admit I'm a little uncomfortable with the following choice of words:

"No matter what gun you are shooting, you can only expect a little more than half of the people you shoot to be immediately incapacitated by your first hit. "

Can't quite put my finger on it...

[NFHale]

Standard self-defense range, anywhere between 7 to 20 feet. Moving both FORWARD and AWAY from the targets.

From the ground (”knocked down”, laying on your back), from a crouch; from cover; from a tuck and roll; from blocked/impeded view; after a palm strike to the face of target and then back away and draw, after a round house kick to the target’s mid section and then back away and draw; after a snap kick into the target’s chones, then back away and draw; after an elbow strike to the target’s face/head, then back away and draw...

Strong side draw, weak side draw (I HAVE no “weak side” - grin....)...

You name it. We train it....:^)