I have no social media accounts; all purported ones are fake.

A different take on handgun stopping power: the Greg Ellifritz study.

A different take on handgun stopping power: the Greg Ellifritz study.

An article by Greg Ellifritz, titled “An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power“, caused some waves a few weeks back.

First, the disclaimers: like all such attempts at quantifying shooting incidents, it suffers from a lack of strictly filtered data and results in less adherence to statistical principles and methods than we might like. That doesn’t mean it’s not useful, only that it’s not strictly precise (and can never be.) I acknowledge that this is a problem with all shooting studies, simply because no two bullet paths are ever identical. I think it’s important to understand that one must be extremely careful about how we apply any such study in a prescriptive manner, and cognizant of the potential inaccuracies that are part and parcel of the kind of data being studied.

That being said, I think Ellifritz gives us a much more realistic look at the topic than Marshall & Sanow ever did.

There much in his compilation that I think is interesting from a training standpoint (even if it might not be a completely reliable predictor.) Take, for instance, the number of people who failed to be incapacitated by shots fired. His figures for all calibers remain remarkably consistent, hovering around 13%, right down to the lowly .380 ACP. Below that, the numbers more than double but again remain surprisingly consistent.

The reason this is interesting is because today’s training emphasizes engagement until the threat ceases activity. In the old days, when lots of people believed that certain calibers were magic wands, the common training was to shoot two rounds and assess the situation. This was aided and abetted by the bogus one-stop-shot percentages that were all the rage at the time (and continue to be in certain circles.)

Thankfully that changed as more and more people noticed that bad guys didn’t always stop with the first round, and that the best course of action was to keep shooting until he did. That’s the norm today: shoot until the threat ceases (though there are still some backwaters where the outdated techniques are still taught with gusto.)

If we’re going to shoot until the threat goes away, are there any calibers which won’t reliably achieve that goal? Not as many as you might think.

If his data is reliable it would tend to support my long-held view that there is a floor beneath which calibers are not terribly effective for self defense, and that the floor is probably lower than most gunnies will admit. I know more than one gunstore goon who sneers at the .380ACP, yet I’ve met people who’ve used it quite successfully. Ellifritz’s article suggests that their successes were not unusual.

Those same people think I’m daft for loading my revolvers with “only” .38 +P rounds instead of the .357 Magnum, but I’m more than comfortable with my choice because I know it’s based on a rational assessment of its performance over a long period of time (not to mention an increase in controllability for multiple shots.)

One thing to keep in mind: a lack of incapacitation does not mean that the rounds failed their job! Even though not incapacitated, the bad guys may have changed their minds and stopped their activity without being physiologically forced to do so. That’s just one of the problems with blindly applying data from these kinds of studies, because the lesser calibers might in fact be more useful than this would suggest. Still, it is a different way of looking at the issue.

Bottom line: pick your gun based on your ability to use it efficiently, practice frequently and realistically with it, and you’ll be far more prepared than the average gunshow denizen who loudly proclaims that all good self defense calibers must begin with ‘.4’.

Bravo to Ellifritz for compiling and sharing what may be the best data we have yet on “stopping power”.

-=[ Grant ]=-

  • Posted by Grant Cunningham
  • On August 31, 2011

Leave Reply