The Best Handgun Caliber - A Real World Study

[Plate plinker]

SHOT PLACEMENT....the only thing that matters

This^^^^^**

[DCM]

The answer primarily resides in the TRUE meaning of "Gun Control"!

This!

A person needs to control Their gun and hit what they are aiming at. Just like hunting well placed shots matter more than all other factors.
Good info here https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Kno...e+Killing.html

[Lloyd Smale]

I could shoot 5 deer right in the heart with a 22lr and have them drop dead. I could then hit 4 with an o6 in the heart and have them run a 100 yards after the hit. I could then claim to shoot 5 deer in the chest with either and some will hit the lungs some the heart with totally different outcomes. Does that make the 22lr equal to the 06? Way to many variables to put numbers on things. I know that I would sure feel better armed with an 06 and sure would feel better about my chances in a gun fight with a 44mag shooting 180 xtps then a 357 shooting xtps and feel better about both when compared to a 380 or even a 40,9 or 45acp. If a 44mag is a better killer of deer, bear, pigs, elk, moose ect why would I think a human is one bit different. Never found a smaller gun to do better at killing then a bigger one ever. Not over the long haul anyway. I kind of relate it to roy weatherby. He went out right after he designed the 257 (which by the way is one of my favorites) and killed about every game animal on earth and claimed it was the end all of rifle rounds. Well later on he found out that some of those kills were more luck then a strike of lightning. those adds of his killing of cape buffalo ect with the 257 disappeared real fast out of the magazines. I personaly pray that if im ever attacked by a bad guy he believes in some of those numbers and is carrying a 380 or 32acp and it just happens to be a day im on my way to camp with a DA 44 mag on my hip.

[skeeter2]

This is not a study. Its just a bunch of data.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

To me, the Marshall and Sanow books and testing methodology are the gold standard in this area. True, they concentrated on handgun cartridges, but their study in that area involved many more incidents. Their successive books were made necessary by changing bullet design/technology resulting in different calibers and specific loadings giving improved performance. Probably the most notable evolution that I noticed is in the 9mm Luger, once argued to be inferior to the .45 ACP in stopping power, and now seemingly its equal. But none of these studies, including the one posted here by grmps (thanks for posting it -- a good read) can be ultimately conclusive. Are we talking about a .380 Auto loaded with a Gold Dot or a 9mm loaded with FMJ. The picture changes if the bullets are reversed. Shot from a handgun, or a carbine with a longer barrel? Other factors that are impossible to figure in ahead of time like clothing, temperature, barricades, etc. also make things unpredictable outside the testing facility. One can assume that lab and range test results that proved superior in those environments will stand a better chance of a one-shot stop, but there are no guarantees. The Marshall and Sanow books just started getting into shotgun and rifle data a little bit, but the study that is the subject of this post advances that knowledge somewhat.

To me, some takeaways are:

Better to have a gun than none.
Better not to get shot at all. It's gonna hurt.
Getting shot in the head is never good. With anything.
The military's general issue is a rifle, instead of a handgun, for good reasons.

Trite generalities, it's true.

[Thundarstick]

Reminds me of the reporter asking the sheriff if he was expecting trouble, seeing he was carrying that 45 auto. He replied, why heck no! If I where expecting trouble I'd have brought a long gun!

[RED BEAR]

I have to believe that where you shoot is more important than what you shoot. I have always believed you cannot compensate for poor accuracy with caliber. The wife and i hit the range at least once a week. And while practicing for good groups is ok it wount do much good if you have to use your gun for self-defense. We both practice instinctive shooting. They aren't the best groups but they are all in head and center chest and pretty quick at that. A simple rule i heard a long time ago that made a lot of since shoot first and dount stop shooting until you hit something they can't do without.

[Lloyd Smale]

that's all any of these tests and studys are. Until someone lines up 500 humans and shoots them with various guns its all just numbers. Every animal and human react different to being shot. Heck id bet if there was a way to prove it the same human or animal would react different to the same shot tomorrow as they did today. What we can determine from all of this bs is how ballistic gelatin reacts to different bullets. Ive shot hundreds of deer in my life. Id bet if I could go back to each shooting and measure how far a deer went after every shot and then took every example for each caliber and charted them there wouldn't be 20 yards of difference I how far deer ran comparing a 243 to a 300 win mag.

This is not a study. Its just a bunch of data.

[dverna]

Getting shot with anything can make for a bad day...or the last day.

Within reason, my little pea brain tells me more energy is always better...all things being equal (ie bullet design)

You still need to be able to control recoil and shoot accurately.

Having more rounds is a good thing. If you can put them on target.

In my case, the "perfect" handgun is a 9mm Glock because I shoot it well. Normally carry Gold Dots. I wish I could control a .44 Mag but I cannot and even the .40 is a bit "snappy". So I use the "inferior" 9mm and practice more than most. HD is 12 ga and .223 if I have time to get to them.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

There just isn't much inferior about a 9mm Gold Dot, or a Glock either. Both good choices!

[Hickory]

You need to know how this data is used and deciphered.
I'll use the 380 for example. It is logical to assume that more people carry a 380 in America than a 44 mag or 45 acp, so it would stand to reason that the 380 would be more effective than other calibers only because more people carry and use a 380 for self-defence.
Not that the 380 is better or superior to larger calibers, but, because more people are shot and killed each year with the 380.

In other words, if 1.5 million people carry a 380 for protection and 2000 people carry a 45 acp and as a whole, they have to shoot and kill around 5000 bad guys out of self-defence, which gun or caliber will be used the most?

These figures are shewed in their presentation and analysis.

[blackthorn]

Just a couple of comments: With respect to the "shoot and keep shooting until the target is down"---I grew up on a farm and I hunted animals from age 10 onward. My buddies all had repeater .22's as opposed to the old single shot (held together with stove-pipe wire) with no extractor/ejector I used. Because they had multiple shots available, when a rabbit took off, they fired at it until it dropped or got away. Now, since I had to flip the fired round out with my jackknife, I just had to wait until the rabbit stopped and then I had to make my only shot count. At the end of a day's hunt I usually had very close to the same amount of rabbits as they did. Recently I hunted with some folks (a family) that hunt Moose like my early buddies hunted rabbits, and while they got Moose, there were usually 3 or 4 holes in it, (not always in the best areas for maximizing the amount of edible meat). About 95% of the Moose I have shot have been one-shot kills and I attribute that to my early "training". God forbid I ever have to use a gun of any kind to defend my family or self against a human but if I do I hope I have the self control to make a one-shot kill.

[JBinMN]

Interesting reading here.

Also, Thanks! to the ones who have shared further reading on the topic/subject!

[RED BEAR]

Being able to hit what you are aiming at with a 22 single shot is not even in the same universe as having to fire in self defense. In a self defence situation almost all will resort to point and fire. Even trained people don't all ways react as they were trained to do. Not only do they not always react as they were trained if they haven't recieved extensive training most will not react as trained. I can't remember the the exact time i think it was 3 seconds is the most time you will have to react in a defensive situation. Thats why i say fire first and don't stop until you hit something they can't do without. If you deciede you have to fire then the rest is instinctive. Thats why i practice from 7 to 25 yards rapid fire. I practice that way because thats how you will shoot in an extreme situation. I really hope that you have the self control to aim and fire but remember that the vast majority of people do not. I would like to think that i would to but i doubt i would. I watched a video of a police officer lose his life because he never reloaded just kept pull the trigger on a empty pistol when there were several magazines on his belt.

[pworley1]

+1 on what Fish4bugs said.

Where your shot hits is far more important than what you shoot.

[robg]

A hit with a 22 is worth 10 misses with a magnum.

[chuckbuster]

Invalid Study and inaccurate Thread Title
.41 Mag not even mentioned that I see.

(Yeah I’m one of those loons)
Kevin

[RED BEAR]

Chuckbuster funny you mentioned not seeing a 41 mag because thats what i carry most of the time. Great gun.