.380 is the same as .45

The study agrees that 25 is trash. Did you look at it?

7.65mm Browning master race.

Attached: FEG AP-MBP.jpg (3264x2448, 2.31M)

Notice that .22 beats even .357 magnum in this chart. There's a lot more at play here than simply ".22 strong, .44 weak." You have to consider the type of person who carries these guns. I would imagine (and this very well may not be right) that most folks who carry .22 for self defense are women who are using derringers or other super compact pistols in their purse. Therefore, the types of engagements they are likely to get a shot off in are against low level purse snatchers (think Mafia level 1) at close range. Women are soft targets so they attract soft criminals who would go down quickly when shot even with a .22.
You can go through each caliber and what sort of person carries each, but long story short there is more to this chart than simply "stoppin' powah."

>5% or less is insignificant
>the 3% difference between .32 and 9mm proves it's shit
>.25 auto is also superior than 9mm cal per the study so that round is good to go
>t. Biased author shilling .380s
That's why these "studies" are fucking laughable.

All that data really shows is that caliber selection is not so important as to make engagement distance, shot placement, and luck insignificant.

I notice you're not so foolish as to suggest that everyone abandon every handgun cartridge except .22LR

No one makes a good modern .32ACP, and ammo's more expensive than 9mm.

no, everybody should use .357 magnum

Indeed. And there's more to the story than that chart. Look at the study.

>.44 Magnum is only 1% more lethal than 25 ACP

Something tells me this chart is missing some important fucking context and is being used to push some sort of incorrect agenda.

>use a 9x17 wadcutter in a pocket pistol
maximum noguns achieved

This.
Also this.

Caliber selection in a pistol doesnt matter all that much. .380 or 9mm are sufficient and you can make a wide variety of guns in those calibers to suit usage taking advantage of the extra capacity of both.

If your carry bullets can’t get above 500 ft lbs they aren’t good enough.

Attached: 466F02BB-9E75-4CA1-96F1-9E134CB86507.png (900x600, 522K)

Look at the fucking study

OP is running off the implications of the image which standalone is a misleading and useless data set.

The Beretta 81 holds 12 and the CZ83 holds 15, but good luck finding either.

> (You)
>OP is running off the implications of the image which standalone is a misleading and useless data set.
On the contrary, all the commenters are running off the image instead of the study itself. I knew this board was full of jarheads but I didn't know it was that bad.

>implying fatalities is what people care about
>taking an unpublished, unreviewed, white paper made by some nobody who refuses to even let people examine his underlying data seriously
Maximum brainlet. We don't even know that his underlying data actually exists let alone that his math is right.
This right here too, OSS studies typically tell you more about who tends to carry a gun and under what circumstances they tend to be used than anything.
He's probably talking about the 40% failure to stop rating for .32.

What are you implying with this comment

I'll just keep carrying 9mm, as always. Keep on justifying your gay shit to strangers, though.

>no one makes a good modern .32acp
What is a good modern 380?

Multiple good XTP loads on the market

youtube.com/watch?v=GNtPHYwcDts

Penetration is the only thing that matters you dumb nigger

rip in peace ammo guy

Anyone know what actually happened to him? i heard he died but no specifics or official source

Translation: I pack ice pick bullets because I know nothing.

You wont be talking shit when you get a hole blown through your skull, heart, and lungs will you?

He might, there's precedent.

Crayon eating isn't exclusive to marines

There is so much wrong with this study, it is mind boggling to think of where to begin.

t butthurt chairforce fag. Get used to the fact no one will ever think your four years of “”””””””service””””””””” is interesting.

>Almost no
>5% difference

Someone doesn't know how to minmax

This. This stupid faggot doesn’t know the difference between a 5% difference and a 95% confidence interval for mu

Both of those guns have G19 sized grips, meaning you could could get 15 rounds of 9x19 with the same level of concealability.

>.357 magnum/sig nearly 50% more lethal than lol9mm
Will the jello junkies ever recover?!?!

>Being this retarded
>Making excuses this hard to carry a faggot caliber

Attached: 1550181573379.gif (680x453, 152K)

Attached: Greg Ellifritz Handgun Caliber Study.png (1280x1280, 2.11M)

Why is .22 so fatal?

>Gabby Giffords gets 9mm through the head >survived because ice pick like wound only affected one hemisphere

It's happened before. Will you 9 millimemers just stop already? Even arguing for shot placement won't save your shit round.

That study is bullshit

underwoodammo.com/products/380-acp-p-65-grain-xtreme-defender

Attached: _20190219_174100.jpg (720x782, 92K)

Attached: It Bounces a Lot.jpg (400x400, 27K)

This.
9mm is the perfect round for ANY situation
>high capacity
>modern loads penetrate ideally
>high reliability in fast cycling of rounds (unlike .22lr)
>low cost

seconded

>All else being the same a 9mm wound is worse than if the exact same shot placement was .380. This is objective, undeniable fact.
But does this difference in wound volume/severity change the probability of stopping an attacker more than it increases recoil or firearm size or whatever?

Thought about that myself looking at his data previously. Assuming it's accurate my personal best guess is:
1. Inclusion of rimfire rifles in the .22 category. While there is a separate category for rifles it is only used for centerfire ones, presumably .22lr rifles are included in the .22 data set, given the ubiquity of .22lr rifles compared to .22lr handguns it's possible that a considerable minority or even the majority of data points in this set refer to instances in which a rifle was used. Much .22lr ball ammo is capable of adequate penetration from a rifle and the rifle platform naturally allows for much better practical accuracy under stress.
2. The natural question raised by my first point is "if .22 was more deadly because of better shot placement, then why are the accuracy figures similar between it and other calibers?". Simply put the author sets an extremely low bar for "accuracy". Any hit to the torso, neck, or head of the body are counted as being equal. The only discounted hits are those to the arms and legs, quite literally a shot to the buttocks counts the same as one between the eyes for his accuracy rates. The study simply doesn't offer an anatomically significant enough level of detail to differentiate between good shot placement and bad shot placement.
3. The kind of people using .22lr for defense, and the situations its used in. Owning only a .22lr firearm for hobby shooting, small game hunting, or competition is hardly unheard of. So is holding on to grampa's old squirrel rifle or your old .22lr your dad got you when you were a kid and leaving it in the closet despite having no real interest in firearms. OTOH carrying a .22lr handgun for CCW is a bit of a niche choice amongst the already somewhat niche CCW community.

All in all a lot of these firearms are rifles, a slightly disproportionate amount are likely being used by very practiced individuals, and a considerably larger majority of them are likely being used in HD situations than any of the other non long guns measured. IMO its possible that this is more than offsetting the fact that they're .22" hole punches instead of .40" ones.