Having a hard time... a 9mm or a .380?

[2700]

…at worst they may get you hurt…

Actually, at worst, you get killed... but I know what you meant. :smile:

…then as the size of the caliber go's up, the less important shot placement is.”

That is patently incorrect, and its belief could get someone killed. The difference of a 9mm or .45 hitting the soft spongy tissue of a lung is physiologically irrelevant. Shot placement is always important, independent of caliber. It never becomes less important.

...even with normal size carry weapons a shot or two with a 45 will stop most BGs…

Most will stop at just the sight of a firearm. Beyond that, the .45 is not the magic caliber that some think it is. Nonetheless, this is not “stopping power”. Many, if not most seasoned combat veterans believe there is no stopping power in any small arms, and certainty it doesn’t exist in a handgun.

... as I'm sure nobody would go very far after a OO or a slug shot…

How far is far? There are documented cases of individuals continuing to fight after being hit COM with the above.

I’m not trying to be augmentative here, but “perceptions” are just that. And there are probably just as many myths about firearms within the firearm community as there are outside of it. At one time or another, I believed some of them.

I like your moniker. My fast days are behind me, and there are no switchback mountain roads here even if those days weren’t.

 

[MNMGoneShooting]

When shot, there are two events that will stop the actor - physiological and psychological. The latter is not predicable. Someone could be shot in just soft tissue of the arm with a .25 and - psychologically - they’re out of the fight. In the former, it occurs with either a CNS interruption or enough blood loss for BP to drop sufficiently and the body shuts down. A CNS shot is the only event with a handgun that will physiologically stop a person immediately with one shot and a .22lr can accomplish that. In that example, caliber, expansion and projectile weight, are all irrelevant as long as it reaches the brainstem.

Relying on a handgun to physiologically stop a hostile outside of a CNS hit, we could be looking at several minutes of fight. Even with a direct hit to the heart, a person has the ability to fight for several seconds – 8, 10, or more. For many, even a few seconds can be a very long and lethal amount of time in a h2h fight.

Putting aside semantics, given handgun velocities and projectile weights, with the forgoing, knockdown power, kinetic energy, and stopping power are irrelevant in handguns.

I think the murders at VT disprove the theory on insufficient stopping power of handguns. In that scenario, a Glock 19 and Walther P22 were used.

 

[2700]

I think the murders at VT disprove the theory on insufficient stopping power of handguns. In that scenario, a Glock 19 and Walther P22 were used.

Comparing the fight in innocent students during the course of their day to a hardened criminal that you may face one day determined to cancel you is unrealistic. Beyond those students being just helpless targets, please review my post on the difference between a physiological and psychological stop as it applies here.

If you disagree, please detail the tactical similarity in someone dying on an operating table three hours later, or even three minutes after you shoot them as apposed to physiologicaly stopping them immediately. Mortality is immaterial. You would be better served by using the term mortality power, which tactically is irrelevant.

 

[longslide10]

9mm now that they have shrunk many firearms down to the 380 size you can pack more firepower but going that route I would step a little and get an XDS. It's as big or as small as a S&W Shield but in the wonderful 45 acp.

 

[95and05]

With your husband being in law enforcement you or he may have contacts that may have firearms that might fit you. You might consider some range time with some of his coworkers and try theirs out as an option other than renting. This is how i found a fit for my wife as rentals are not an option here.

 

[Rocketgeezer]

Actually, at worst, you get killed... but I know what you meant. :smile:


That is patently incorrect, and its belief could get someone killed. The difference of a 9mm or .45 hitting the soft spongy tissue of a lung is physiologically irrelevant. Shot placement is always important, independent of caliber. It never becomes less important.



Most will stop at just the sight of a firearm. Beyond that, the .45 is not the magic caliber that some think it is. Nonetheless, this is not “stopping power”. Many, if not most seasoned combat veterans believe there is no stopping power in any small arms, and certainty it doesn’t exist in a handgun.


How far is far? There are documented cases of individuals continuing to fight after being hit COM with the above.

I’m not trying to be augmentative here, but “perceptions” are just that. And there are probably just as many myths about firearms within the firearm community as there are outside of it. At one time or another, I believed some of them.

I like your moniker. My fast days are behind me, and there are no switchback mountain roads here even if those days weren’t.

Switchback mountain rds? you must be speaking of the "Dragon" between TN and NC, that road is a attitude adjuster for sure, and I use "Rocketgeezer" cause I'm a old fart and I ride a Turbo Hayabusa and a Harley Ultra Classic,..... and while I agree that a handgun will not have the stopping power of a rifle, or shotgun, I would still pick a 40 or 45 for carry guns, which is why I carry one of each, a Colt Defender and a G-27, instead of extra mags

 

[cluznar]

Whatever you get, shoot it, clean it, lube it, and use good defense ammo.

:triniti:

 

[Michael David Tiebout]

My wife decided to start Conceal Carrying (CC) and didn't know what to get either. She finally went with the Sig Sauer P250 SC. We got it in a .380 and she loves it. Easy to CC and small enough for her hands. We decided to get the .380 because I already have a P250 SC in a 9mm. When she's ready for a step up then I'll go get a caliber change kit for my P250 in a .357 and give her my 9mm kit. I agree to try some and what you like and you may get lucky.

 

[Telli97]

I have 3 ccw guns. Walther pps 9mm, sw shield, 9mm and a sw model 442, .38spl. All good choices. For .380 I don't have any, but 2 of my friends have lcp's and like them.

 

[Rhino]

When shot, there are two events that will stop the actor - physiological and psychological. The latter is not predicable. Someone could be shot in just soft tissue of the arm with a .25 and - psychologically - they’re out of the fight. In the former, it occurs with either a CNS interruption or enough blood loss for BP to drop sufficiently and the body shuts down. A CNS shot is the only event with a handgun that will physiologically stop a person immediately with one shot and a .22lr can accomplish that. In that example, caliber, expansion and projectile weight, are all irrelevant as long as it reaches the brainstem.

Absolutely not true. There are a number of ways to physically incapacitate an attacker without a hit to the central nervous system and without causing massive blood loss. Try chasing someone with a knife when your femur has been shot in half. And blood loss isn't required for blood pressure to drop significantly. People can go into shock with no blood loss at all. I see it all the time. You may have seen it too if you've ever seen someone faint. Though I'm sure you'd deem that a psychological effect, it does demonstrate that the body can be incapacitated by shock without blood loss. Wounds that don't cause the immediate physiological or psychological damage that you envision, can and do cause shock without massive blood loss, which can very much immediately incapacitate. There are also certain parts of the body that can cease an attack if they're damaged or broken, even if the overall damage to the body as a whole isn't immediately catastrophic, or even if it isn't a serious wound at all, such as the aforementioned femur.
.

Relying on a handgun to physiologically stop a hostile outside of a CNS hit, we could be looking at several minutes of fight. Even with a direct hit to the heart, a person has the ability to fight for several seconds – 8, 10, or more. For many, even a few seconds can be a very long and lethal amount of time in a h2h fight.

That's generally why you keep firing untill the threat has stopped.
.

Putting aside semantics, given handgun velocities and projectile weights, with the forgoing, knockdown power, kinetic energy, and stopping power are irrelevant in handguns.

So we should just take handguns away from cops then. Handgun stopping power is not even remotely irrelevant. You even said above that someone could be stopped with a 25 or a 22, so that would mean they aren't irrelevant according to your examples. And your claim would come as a shock to the many thousands of people who have successfully defended themselves with only one shot from a handgun. Irrelevant? Don't make me laugh! And if stopping power of handgun ammo was irrelevant, then why does the 380 only have a 50% to 70% rate of one shot stops in actual uses of firearms in self defense, while the 357 magnum has an 80% to 90% one shot stop rate? Handgun stopping power is about as relevant as anything could be when it comes to the defensive use of firearms. Telling someone it isn't is potentially putting them in danger, assuming they're gullible enough to believe you.

 

[2700]

Absolutely not true. There are a number of ways to physically incapacitate an attacker without a hit to the central nervous system and without causing massive blood loss. Try chasing someone with a knife when your femur has been shot in half.

Clearly you have not thought this through. A broken femur, doesn’t stop a hostile from putting a bullet in your head. Until the body shuts down and the hostile is dead or unconscious, they remain a potential threat. Two events physiologically guarantee that - enough loss of blood or a disruption to the CNS.

And your claim would come as a shock to the many thousands of people who have successfully defended themselves with only one shot from a handgun. Irrelevant? Don't make me laugh!

Over 2 million people lawfully defend themselves with a firearm each year. Forget one shot, most of those don’t even fire a single shot. Those guns could have been unloaded and they would have had the same effect. If you really want a good laugh, go ahead and call an unloaded, unfired handgun, “stopping power”. Given your analogy, what we have here is not stopping power, it’s scary power. Now that should give you a good laugh, eh?

…380 only have a 50% to 70% rate of one shot stops in actual uses of firearms in self defense, while the 357 magnum has an 80% to 90% one shot stop rate?

Go ahead a site the source of that. I doubt you even could. When you do, demonstrate it was a physiologically stop. You won’t be able to. Like I indicated above, most people stop at just the sight of a gun. I guess with your statistical “scary power” we should carry unloaded guns?

Telling someone it isn't is potentially putting them in danger, assuming they're gullible enough to believe you.

You couldn’t be more wrong. Having anyone believe the statistics you presented and even a suggest that someone has a reasonable tactical chance, at any percentage, of physiologically stopping someone with a single shot from a handgun will put their life in danger if they ever find themselves in a violent encounter.

Of course, we could always discount seasoned combat veterans and say, “hey I read it on the internet - Rhino told us so it must be true…” Does that give you the laugh you’re looking for? It does me…

 

[JrFreak]

I'm trying to choose a concealed carry weapon. A little background; I am a mother of a toddler with one on the way. I am not SUPER proficient with handguns though my husband is (he is law enforcement). He typically shoots with a .40 or .45 though, and as I am trying to choose a concealed carry weapon for myself neither of those would be a good fit for me.

I plan to carry everywhere. I've never shot a .380, only 9mm (Ruger LC9 and Glock 17). I would love the stopping power of a 9mm but I am just not sure I can comfortably conceal and carry a 9mm gun with chasing around and carrying a toddler and an infant. Typically, my husband is with me and carrying, but for the times he isn't I definitely need something.

Can anyone tell me more about .380s? Models, preference, recoil, malfunctions, shooting long range, etc. It is not a requirement, but I REALLLLLY would prefer something with a manual/external safety with always having my small children with me. I would prefer to carry on my person, which would help the safety issue, but it would just put my mind more at ease with a manual.

Thanks in Advance!
Kaytee

Your husband is a LEO and you're asking us???

I'd say 9mm. Ammo is cheaper, more stopping power and many are just as concealable as the .380. I bought a Kahr PM9 and love it. It's my main carry firearm now. I switch in a Glock 23 from time to time.

 

[cluznar]

Bersa Thunder .380 or Sig P238 are both nice .380 guns for carry. Then of course there are many nice 9mm guns.

:dirol:

 

[Rhino]

Clearly you have not thought this through. A broken femur, doesn’t stop a hostile from putting a bullet in your head. Until the body shuts down and the hostile is dead or unconscious, they remain a potential threat. Two events physiologically guarantee that - enough loss of blood or a disruption to the CNS.

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote. I said knife, not gun. You shoot to stop the threat, in whatever form that threat presents itself, and often that threat is not in the form of a gun. That's why I used chasing someone with a knife as an example, something you either missed or chose to ignore.
.

Over 2 million people lawfully defend themselves with a firearm each year. Forget one shot, most of those don’t even fire a single shot.

Yes, but about 480,000 (24%) of them do, which is why I said many thousands, something else you apparently missed or chose to ignore. Abouut 160,000 (8%) of those wound or kill their attacker.
.

Those guns could have been unloaded and they would have had the same effect.

I'm willing to bet those 480,000 people would disagree with you.
.

If you really want a good laugh, go ahead and call an unloaded, unfired handgun, “stopping power”. Given your analogy, what we have here is not stopping power, it’s scary power. Now that should give you a good laugh, eh?

It might be amusing if you weren't advising people that an unloaded gun is just as valuable as a loaded one. You can get people killed with logic like that.
.

Go ahead a site the source of that. I doubt you even could. When you do, demonstrate it was a physiologically stop. You won’t be able to. Like I indicated above, most people stop at just the sight of a gun. I guess with your statistical “scary power” we should carry unloaded guns?

Pick a wound ballistics study. There are basically two camps, those in the Marshall/Sanow arena and those in the Fackler arena. But for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't really make any difference, because both of those camps do very much make the same distinctions between those two calibers. And you're the one advocating unloaded guns, not me. You're telling everyone here that handgun stopping power is a myth, and that there is no difference between guns or ammunition, so it matters not what you carry, or if you even carry at all.
.

You couldn’t be more wrong. Having anyone believe the statistics you presented and even a suggest that someone has a reasonable tactical chance, at any percentage, of physiologically stopping someone with a single shot from a handgun will put their life in danger if they ever find themselves in a violent encounter.

Actually, some of the statistics I've presented come from the very same place your 2 million number comes from, Gary Kleck. If it matters that much to you, you cans see some of them here:
Link Removed
.
For Marshall/Sanow, most of their stats were presented in their book, but excerpts are all over the web, so you won't have any trouble finding it. The same pretty much holds true for Fackler, but his stuff is mostly found at his web site, FirearmsTactical.com - Home. The biggest difference between the two was that Marshall/Sanow relied on actual shootings because they felt ballistic gelatin tests didn't relate to real life shootings, and Fackler relies almost exclusively on ballistic gelatin testing. That divide between real life shooting results and gelatin shooting results stemmed from an FBI shootout in April of 1986 in which two FBI agents were killed. The FBI were outgunned by two suspects even though they outnumbered the suspects 4 to 1. The FBI began a search for a more powerful round and the divide between data from real life shootings and ballistic gelatin tests began. But again, both data sets still show the disparity between the 380 and 357 I mentioned. There's simply no way you can credibly claim there's no difference between the damage those two rounds cause, and that is reflected in real life shootings with them.
.

Of course, we could always discount seasoned combat veterans and say, “hey I read it on the internet - Rhino told us so it must be true…” Does that give you the laugh you’re looking for? It does me…

You coming on a gun forum and telling people handguns don't matter and don't have stopping power is what is really laughable.

 

[2700]

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote. I said knife, not gun. You shoot to stop the threat, in whatever form that threat presents itself, and often that threat is not in the form of a gun. That's why I used chasing someone with a knife as an example, something you either missed or chose to ignore.

Attempts to obfuscate the topic to prove a point you can’t will not be productive. Unless you live in a world where BGs only carry knives, your analogy is as irrelevant as your handgun stopping power.

Yes, but about 480,000 (24%) of them do, which is why I said many thousands, something else you apparently missed or chose to ignore. Abouut 160,000 (8%) of those wound or kill their attacker.

Wounding or mortality 3 hours or three minutes after being shot, at any percentage, much less 8% is irrelevant. Immediately stopping a hostile is. You continue to miss that point. As it would be foolish to rely on a psychological stop, we must pursue a physiological stop.

I am quite familiar with Marshall and the compromised methodology of his studies and results. I’m also familiar with FirearmsTactical.com and Shawn’s position on Marshall’s studies which can be read by his reposting of Maanen’s article here - Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time

Your continued attempts to obfuscate, twist and distract only discredits you. Let’s look at some of them here:

And you're the one advocating unloaded guns, not me.

It might be amusing if you weren't advising people that an unloaded gun is just as valuable as a loaded one. You can get people killed with logic like that.

and that there is no difference between guns or ammunition, so it matters not what you carry, or if you even carry at all.

telling people handguns don't matter

However challenged your reading comprehension skills may be, it would be difficult to consider that you really believe that I advocate carrying an unloaded firearm or not carrying at all - or any of the above. Instead it becomes obvious you attempt to distract from a fact you cannot challenge on the merits, and instead resort to techniques that compromise your credibility.

At first I didn’t understand why you were so emotionally attach to the myth of handgun stopping power, and then it became clear….

Go back and read again everything that I wrote. This time take out your emotional attachment to your first post where you talked about handgun stopping power. When your takeaway of my point is only that handgun stopping power is a myth, you will have read my position correctly.

I have associates and personal friends that are seasoned combat veterans and operators that would tell you through their own hardcore reality and experience that there is no stopping power in most, if not all small arms, and certainly none in a handgun at all. Now, if you want to believe what somebody told somebody at a bowling ally and you read it on the internet, go ahead. I doubt many, if anyone else, would share in that foolishness.

You talk about the FBI, but say nothing - nothing that connects the FBI to disproving the myth of handgun stopping power. Why? The answer is easy; the FBI knows that handgun stopping power is a myth. The DOJ/FBI paper titled, “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” states, “The concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth.”

So the reader here can either believe countless experienced combat veterans, world operators, the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, historical and empirical data, or Rihno, the guy on an internet forum…

 

[Rocketgeezer]

At least I'm glad to see I'm not special, Mr 2700 is a unbiased, equal oportunity ball buster

 

[2700]

At least I'm glad to see I'm not special, Mr 2700 is a unbiased, equal oportunity ball buster

Not 100% sure what you mean, but I hope you did not take my response to you in anyway disrespectful. If you or MNMGoneShooting did, my apologies. That was never my intent. And what makes you so sure I’m a Mr.?

That aside, if someone else here comes looking for a spirited engagement, they should not be surprised to get what they came for.

 

[Rhino]

Repeated attempts to obfuscate the topic to prove a point you can’t will not be productive. Unless you live in a world where BGs only carry knives, your analogy is as irrelevant as your handgun stopping power.

Attempts to avoid the point I made aren't helping your case.
.

Wounding or mortality 3 hours or three minutes after being shot, at any percentage, much less 8% is irrelevant. Immediately stopping a hostile is. You continue to miss that point.

Not at all. I'm the one pointing out that handgun rounds do that, sometimes instantaneously, even without massive blood loss or a direct hit to the central nervous system. You're saying they don't.
.

As it would be foolish to rely on a psychological stop, we must pursue a physiological stop.

But since you say handgun stopping power is a myth, what exactly do you plan to use for that physiological stop? A bazooka?
.

I am quite familiar with Marshall and the compromised methodology of his studies and results. I’m also familiar with FirearmsTactical.com and Shawn’s position on Marshall’s studies which can be read by his reposting of Maanen’s article here - Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time

Excellent. I already pointed out there were two camps with opposing viewpoints. But they disagree over the methodology of data gathering and analysis, not over whether different ammuntion has varying degrees of effectiveness. Since both camps refute what you said here about different ammo having different stopping power, can we now call that part of the debate settled?
.

Your continued attempts to obfuscate, twist and distract only discredits you. Let’s look at some of them here:

I've been talking about what you've said. If I've been misinterpreting it, you've had plenty of time to clarify but haven't made any attempt to do so. But I'll be happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. Clarify away.
.
--- "In responding here I would first like to dismiss the myth of stopping power in a handgun – it doesn’t exist." ----
That means handguns have no stopping power. Given that you made such a statement in a thread about different ammunition, the logical extrapolation of that is that it makes no difference what ammo you use in a handgun because none of them have any stopping power. You did go on to say you considered the 380 a minimum caliber for protection, a dichotomy I pointed out but you never explained. But feel free to clarify, please.
.
--- "Putting aside semantics, given handgun velocities and projectile weights, with the forgoing, knockdown power, kinetic energy, and stopping power are irrelevant in handguns." ---
That statement does indeed mean that, at least in your eyes, there is no difference between guns or ammunition, so it matters not what we carry. However, if you misstated yourself and intended to say something else, please enlighten us. There's nothing wrong with that. Misunderstandings are common on the internet.
.

However challenged your reading comprehension skills may be, it would be difficult to consider that you really believe that I advocate carrying an unloaded firearm or not carrying at all - or any of the above. Instead it becomes obvious you attempt to distract from a fact you cannot challenge on the merits, and instead resort to techniques that compromise your credibility.

Maybe it's your writing style.
.
--- "Many, if not most seasoned combat veterans believe there is no stopping power in any small arms, and certainty it doesn’t exist in a handgun. " ---
No stopping power exists in a handgun, or in any small arms for that matter. Your words, not mine. Other than maybe scaring someone away, which you mentioned elsewhere, that means a handgun, or the ammo in it, has no use. It does make me wonder how people have been killing other people with small arms for centuries if they have no stopping power.
.

At first I didn’t understand why you were so emotionally attach to the myth of handgun stopping power, and then it became clear….

Yeah, facts. Even some facts from that same web site you linked to. Imagine that.
.

Go back and read again everything that I wrote. This time take out your emotional attachment to your first post where you talked about handgun stopping power. When your takeaway of my point is only that handgun stopping power is a myth, you will have read my position correctly.

Then I guess I didn't misinterpret you. And I have gone back and read it. Several times. It's kind of hard to believe that someone who supposedly carries a handgun, claims that their stopping power is a myth, the caliber and ammunition makes no difference, and they're only useful for scaring people away.
.

I have associates and personal friends that are seasoned combat veterans and operators that would tell you through their own hardcore reality and experience that there is no stopping power in most, if not all small arms, and certainly none in a handgun at all. Now, if you want to believe what somebody told somebody at a bowling ally and you read it on the internet, go ahead. I doubt many, if anyone else, would share in that foolishness.

I don't bowl. I have many such friends. Some are/were my coworkers and, some were my comrades in the military and some I know from public service and rescue activities I'm involved with now. None of them would ever remotely believe that handguns have no stopping power. And juvenile cheap shots are a hallmark of a weak argument. We can both do better than that I think.
.

You talk about the FBI, but say nothing - nothing that connects the FBI to disproving the myth of handgun stopping power. Why? The answer is easy; the FBI knows that handgun stopping power is a myth. The DOJ/FBI paper titled, “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” states, “The concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth.”

I have a copy of it. That sentence doesn't start with "The concept..." by the way. What Patrick is calling a myth is the "reliable and reproducible" part, not the handgun stopping power part. On the contrary, he goes to great lengths to detail what kinds of ammunition have the best chances of producing stoppable hits, such as those with the largest diameter (caliber), those that penetrate at least 12 inches (preferably 18), etc., etc. It starts on page 11.
.

So the reader here can either believe countless experienced combat veterans, world operators, the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, historical and empirical data, or Rihno, the guy on an internet forum…

The reader here can read the entire document from the FBI instead of just the one sentence you quoted, along with lots of other data out there. I always tell people to confirm with more than one source, and that includes confirming what I say here. Those familiar with me can tell you that. We have combat veterans here. I doubt you'd have much success convincing any of them that handguns have no stopping power. It has absolutely nothing to do with me, though you've repeatedly tried to cast it in that light.
.
For the rest of you, the FBI paper is available here if you want to see it:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

 

[Rhino]

Bersa Thunder .380 or Sig P238 are both nice .380 guns for carry. Then of course there are many nice 9mm guns.

Agreed. I'd also have to agree with 2700 that a 9mm would be a better choice during winter when people are wearing thicker clothing. You need enough energy left over after the cloting has been penetrated. But again, that's my personal take. Many people are perfectly happy carrying a 380 all year round.

 

[2700]

I'm the one pointing out that handgun rounds do that, sometimes instantaneously, even without massive blood loss or a direct hit to the central nervous system. You're saying they don't.

No, you were pointing out, and I'll quote you, “ (8%) of those wound or kill their attacker.” Wounding is not stopping and killing does not stop until the combatant dies or is unconscious, which could be minutes or hours later. Enough time to kill you too.

As far as your unrelated statement here, read what I said again. That is a psychological stop, not physiological. That’s not stopping power. That’s luck of the draw that the combatant had a weak constitution and will be out of the fight for a psychological reason. Depend on that or any psychological stop and you’ll get canceled in a hardcore violent encounter. Sometimes, in fact, most of the time people are stopped by just the sight of a gun. If someone relies on that or your example above, and it’s on with a hardcore criminal, they are going to wind up cold.

The FBI's paper throws your idea right out the window by stating, "Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary and this takes time."

It does make me wonder how people have been killing other people with small arms for centuries if they have no stopping power.

Your quote here shows best that you still don't get it. Mortality is not stopping power. Beyond the fact that statically most people don’t even die when shot with a handgun, I have answered this several times here:

please detail the tactical similarity in someone dying on an operating table three hours later, or even three minutes after you shoot them as apposed to physiologicaly stopping them immediately. Mortality is immaterial.

And here:

Wounding or mortality 3 hours or three minutes after being shot, at any percentage, much less 8% is irrelevant. Immediately stopping a hostile is. You continue to miss that point.

And here:

Relying on a handgun to physiologically stop a hostile outside of a CNS hit, we could be looking at several minutes of fight.

So again, mortality is irrelevant. The guy you shot lived for a few minutes or even seconds – enough time to kill you and then died. But he is dead and you stopped him with your "stopping power", right? Well, so are you.

What Patrick is calling a myth is the "reliable and reproducible" part, not the handgun stopping power part.

I thought quantum leap was only a tv show. I don't even know why I am going to answer your attempt to grasp at straws, but here goes. So your stopping power isn’t reliable or reproducible. That’s not stopping power. Hope and prayer aren’t stopping power. It’s a myth and those are the author’s exact words.

That sentence doesn't start with "The concept..." by the way.

The entire quote is here:

With the exception of hits to the brain, or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth.

I have already made the point of the first part of that quote here:

A CNS shot is the only event with a handgun that will physiologically stop a person immediately with one shot and a .22lr can accomplish that.

So tell me, with your “stopping power” are you going to make all your shots brainstem and upper spinal? Failing that, there is no one shot stop - ergo, no stopping power. Let’s read more on the FBI’s paper:

Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary and this takes time.

I detailed the same here:

it occurs with either a CNS interruption or enough blood loss for BP to drop sufficiently and the body shuts down.

Relying on a handgun to physiologically stop a hostile outside of a CNS hit, we could be looking at several minutes of fight.

Reading on, the FBI states:

For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.

I detailed the same here:

Even with a direct hit to the heart, a person has the ability to fight for several seconds – 8, 10, or more. For many, even a few seconds can be a very long and lethal amount of time in a h2h fight.

You have argued with all of the above. There is no need to post a voluminous irrelevant narrative about “writing styles”, “logical extrapolation”, a “dichotomy I pointed out”, and all the other attempts to obfuscate and distract from disproving the statement that handgun stopping power is a myth.

I didn’t invent this, I learn from experience or people smarter than me. It’s rather arrogant to believe you are smarter and know more than experienced combat veterans, world operators and the DOJ/FBI.

Then I guess I didn't misinterpret you. And I have gone back and read it. Several times. It's kind of hard to believe that someone who supposedly carries a handgun, claims that their stopping power is a myth, the caliber and ammunition makes no difference, and they're only useful for scaring people away.

You read it several times? Okay, go ahead and quote me where I said, “caliber and ammunition makes no difference.” The fact is, in my very first post I said it did make a difference. A fact that you recognized this by your post right above this post here:

I'd also have to agree with 2700 that a 9mm would be a better choice during winter…

But you want people to think you really believe I consider, “caliber and ammunition makes no difference” Making statements like that simply discredits you and what you write.

So keep posting how I advocate unloaded guns, or how I believe there is no difference between guns or ammunition, that a handgun or the ammo in it has no use, and all the other nonsense you claim I said. The reader can see in just the few posts in this thread alone - or anywhere else - that I never said or even remotely intimated such absurdities, and when they do, what do you think they will think of you?

We can both do better than that I think.

You want to have a civil dialog with me now? You’re a little late for that. You stared the confrontational post from the get-go. But, okay, I’ll give it a shot.

Go ahead and demonstrate how the FBI is wrong and a handgun has stopping power. So far, if I use your analogies all I come up with scary power and mortality power. Stopping power is just that, one shot stop, and that stop must be a physiological stop. Now don’t back peddle and play with words. In my first response to you I said:

Putting aside semantics, given handgun velocities and projectile weights, with the forgoing, knockdown power, kinetic energy, and stopping power are irrelevant in handguns.

You took exception to that, so don’t play with semantics. Show how any of that is relevant with a handgun in a SD scenario.