Success rate is defined as the percentage of incidents wherein the weapon ultimately succeeded in ending an attacker's actions.
Source: buckeyefirearms.org
They're all the same. Carry what you're comfortable with. TRAIN WITH IT. That's what makes the difference.
>They're all the same.
I am seeing very clear differences in these numbers user. Can you read?
>456 9mm incidents
I rest my case. The world's special ops all use it.
I'm seeing a 4% difference between the worst and best round.
Imagine being the nog that tried to rob someone who pulls out a fucking .44 big iron and blows you away
I'm imagining the number of big iron wielders is limited, and the average age means 87% effectiveness is actually impressive, as though the increased muzzle energy and technique completely bridged the gap caused by declining senses and weaker bodies
Indeed, the sample size is 24 after all. It appears less than 1 in 20 times a 9mm shows up.
>conveniently leaving out stats that don't support your claim
>believing an unreviewed white paper released by a nobody who refuses to let other people examine his underlying data
Just sad. Oh, and .357 magnum had a 40% higher rate of lethality than lol9mm despite a lower average number of rounds fired FYI, so if we're taking this study seriously then damn.
Do you really care whether you kill or incapacitate? No, you care whether you and your loved ones are fine. That data I'm showing is the culmination of all the data in the study. One kills more? Fine, but there are other factors that are more important.
Lol. Put a 9mm in the upper chest or head and I can guarantee you plenty of lethality. Learn to shoot
>carrying a .44 Magnum
thats where I dream to be
What would that even be? Other than really loose pants with a "universal" holster clipped to the inside of your pants with a fat revolver in it
This guy is gonna get shredded in court
Also I want physical removal of degenerates from the gene pool, yes
>very clear differences
A massive difference of four whole percent is probably not even statistically significant in a study like this
Maybe I speak for myself here.. but if I feel the need to shoot a motherfucker, I think it goes without saying that I want them to die.
t.10mm fag.
you need at least 5% to be statistically significant
Not necessarily. 5% (P-value of 0.05) is commonly used in statistical analysis, but it depends on the study/data itself and what the researchers doing the analysis are looking for.
>45acp>9mm
Nine millimeter faggots BTFO!!!
We finally know .45 ACP is 1% better. What a time to be alive.
Success is killing the mother fucker. I don’t want some faggot mugger out and about thinking about getting some revenge.
So magdump and say you were scared for your life, it's what the police do
How many times do we have to repost this?
Police have lawyers and unions behind their backs.
Not to mention being police at all. In the US, that fundementally changes how charges against you are filed and considered on a legal level.
>No source
>No methodology
>No sample size
>Including sub-self-defense rounds to make the handgun average worse
Swim bought guns by what cartridge they were designed for.
>M&P9C
>USP40
>RIA doublestack 1911 in .45
>new production model 19
Yeah all cartridges are the same. Just depends on what type of cool you feel like today.
Thread hijack. Anyone get bank loans to invest but only for dividends. Not capital gains? Thinking being longterm "pay for a mortgage" investing
RedHawks have this weird beauty, almost like they’re stylized, like a gun from TF2 exists in reality or something. Does anyone know this feel?
Form follows function?
Maybe read marcus arelius' meditations. It's not a term but a philosophy maybe
Maybe.
This is flawed because:
>It does not say where the person was shot
>It does not say how many times the person was shot
>It does not say how long was the barrel of the weapon
>Most sample sizes are too small especially .44 magnum where 1 shooting can make a difference of 4% putting it at 91%
Leveraging into Corp dividend stocks seems sketchy AF. The risk profile of the companies you'll need to invest in to beat your loan rate (assuming not borrowing the parents money for zero) is dangerous. When one of them blows up you have a negative cash flow for the life of the loan or until... Well, what was your security on that loan?
>9mm down by 1%
*ahem*
FUCK 9MM NIGGERS
.40 WINS AGAIN!
5% isn't exactly a difference of 5%, it's what lies in the 5% outside of I think 2 standard deviations.
Statistics are a bitch.
>ending actions
Killing the attacker or simply causing him to "stop right there, criminal scum?" Because this is a huge point, if you simply shoot Tyrone and he sues you for everything you have through Eli Shekelburg, it would be better just to get robbed.
Post one shot drops.
Source is literally the OP link, dipshit.
It's +/- 1.96 in the z-metric, I.e. a normal/Gaussian distribution. I won't go further down this rabbit hole here.
The 83% at N=199 isn't different from any of the 87%s, you can test any comparison here using a simple Chi-Square test for differences in proportions.
That being said, viewing it as only a 4% difference isn't the way to think about it. In one case you have a 17% chance of failure, whereas another gives 13%. This is a proportional reduction of failure rate around 23.5%, like getting a 23.5% discount. If they collected more data and these fail rates didn't change, this reduction should not be viewed as a triviality (in the general sense of effect size, rather than something more arbitrary like significance testing).
I'd be happy to talk more about this kind of shit if you'd like or have other questions. Usually bores people, though.
t. phd statistician
Did you even read OP's image, you dumb cunt?
Those are percentages in which they STOPPED the attacker, not necessarily killed him.
More importantly, most people are damn well going to quit trying to rob you or whatever they were on about after you put a slug in their chest, pretty much regardless of what it came from. Unless you're in an actual war or some other situation where the only goal and the only outcome is people dying, most folks are going to give up and go seek medical attention because they don't want to fucking die for your wallet.
You should probably seek some medical attention yourself to help you figure out why you're so bloodthirsty that you only care whether or not the gun can blow somebody away in a single shot. You do realize its a lot harder to defend your self-defense in court with a dead body involved rather than an injured criminal, right?
The funny thing about "Physically removing degenerates" is that once we start down that road, it isn't ever going to stop. I think you're a degenerate fuckwit. You probably think I'm a degenerate fuckwit. We could both kill each other, and the rest of us could all kill each other, and then we'd all be dead.
But don't think for a second that you're going to go around removing "degenerates" without somebody removing you. If you weren't a degenerate, you wouldn't be fantasizing about going around killing random people over something you THINK they are.
Kinda what I meant, it's not exactly the same thing as just straightforward differences. I didn't think about considering it from failure percentage, even though I know I should have.
I've done enough of this stuff to get through a low level analytical chem course, I just didn't like doing it.
Is the distribution wide enough to have the outliers be statistically significant, if you have the inclination to figure that out?
You're brain dead if you don't understand why some people would prefer for what they shoot to die.
>anybody who pistol hunts, is a LEO, medical examiner, or otherwise uses/observes handguns being used to kill things says .357 is better
>study of several hundreds of shootings shows that .357 is significantly more lethal
>"lmao, 9mm is plenty lethal if you place it in the brainstem"
So's .17hmr, but that's clearly not the topic of discussion. .357 magnum continually shows itself to be a better choice in terms of per round effectiveness in real world situations, per the study in question. But 9mm apologists simply can't help but get triggered anytime somebody suggests that their cartridge isn't literally the best at everything and come out of the woodwork to try to justify how its "just as good".
>inb4 capacity
Reality check, your glock 19s capacity "advantage"means nothing more than having an extra 12rnds left in your autoloader's magazine after a civilian DGU instead of only 3-5 left over in a revolver. The only difference is one put them down quicker and permanently while the other didn't.
>XD cast the first stone i dare you fag lol nice sin loser
At some point you're being mugged by someone who thinks he's godzilla and you will still have to say to the man who wanted him locked up before it could ever happened "who are you to say this man is a crazy degenerate? he just needs a little help"
And then as his deformed offspring anally rapes you while he holds you down, you say
"And who are you to say he has ahem, bad genetics? Fuck off nazis nobody can be born wrong it's all in the environment"
i don't shoot 357 because i value my eardrums more than being able to say it only took one shot to get de'jamal "80 eye coo" white to put the gun away
t. carries 22lr
>Those are percentages in which they STOPPED the attacker, not necessarily killed him.
Im talking about a different data set from the same source that OP is "conveniently" ignoring, you dumb cunt. Learn to read.
>More importantly, most people are damn well going to quit trying to rob you or whatever they were on about after you put a slug in their chest, pretty much regardless of what it came from.
Not according to OPs source where literally 40% of people kept doing whatever they wanted to after being shot with certain calibers(cough, cough .32 acp)
>its a lot harder to defend your self-defense in court with a dead body involved rather than an injured criminal
Confirmed for having no clue what you're talking about.
More like 35m people disappear in a month and we never speak of it again
Nuffins. Seems like the only way to even get a return of $3000-$6000 quarterly is to be an insider. At that point why not play loose and fast?
Are you that fucking audio engineer who came and asked about what caliber to carry and then proceeded to ignore everyone's advice like four years ago?
Sure thing, senpai. I used their incap numbers from the link in OP.
Forgot the context -- these are just the failure rates with 95% CIs added (i.e. if you redid this experiment a bazillion times, you'd expect a % in this range 95% of the time, per the frequentist understanding of stats).
The tighter ranges just tell you where the N was higher. Also, seems like 357 was reported as 9% fail to incapacitate in the source link? Did I misread, or did op make an error?
Sorry again for more context -- if you compare things and their intervals don't overlap or only ever so slightly overlap, you can treat that as significant here. It is a somewhat cavalier approach but it should work just fine for our discussion.
The only use I have for 9mm is to feed a Hi Power. Or a CZ. Or maybe a Sig SAO. Okay, fuck. Maybe a 9mm 1911.
>9mm 1911
2 gays don't make a straight, they make aids.
>"Over a 10-year period, I kept track of stopping power results from every shooting I could find."
>Blog post from 2011
>Where is the raw data?
Jow Forums should be compiling and documenting data in an ongoing basis from public incidents so that we can discuss these topics with more confidence
This. The information isn't really that useful in determining the true potential of a particular round. However it does seem to indicate the inadequate performance of sub .38 caliber pistols and is kinda a fuck you to the euros and (battle)rifle fags that scream about how useless pistols are.
Imagine that secondary plasma explosion inside you.
A dead man can't take you to trial, can't cry in front of a stacked Court, can't fake a long lasting disability. You are always better off killing.
No but it does say that from a practical perspective once you get to 9mm or above you're good.
The raw data is just one step backwards from the tables he posted and could easily be derived from them with basic arithmetic. We're taking his word on it either way, so I don't think it matters much.
What does matter is that with 1700 incidents over 10 years he should have had no problem sourcing everything. It would be one entry every couple days. He didn't though. Maybe he did, but it isn't public so we'll assume he didn't.
It suggests what we already know, that standard .38 caliber cartridges are adequate for self defense. The notion that they're performance is not distinguishable from magnum cartridges, however, is at best dubious.
>The raw data is just one step backwards from the tables he posted and could easily be derived from them with basic arithmetic.
The raw data is the sourcing. He did a good effort, but I'd like to this type of study continued and improved upon.
I suspect the reason 38 special had a slightly higher failure rate is because it was being used by women a lot.
Now imagine a hollow point
Sample size for .44 Magnum is too small.
Can't trust that.
Avoid .44 Magnum, it's not a proven round.
Sure the sample size is small but it would stand to reason that it would drop somebody. The lack of CC options is a much larger concern.
farting Jello
Eat it. You'll wanna die. It's 20% powder and 80% water. The powder is already not the same gelatin stuff you eat.
I mean, you *could* dilute the shit out of it and out in a fuck ton of food dye and it would still be bland, and that's the closest it'll ever get to being Jello.
I wanna do the opposite. Make ballistics gel colored Jello for an April fool's ballistics test.
It would be like when people use watermelons to simulate human heads "because it's hard on the outside and soft on the inside"
>ending the attackers actions
I'm trying to kill people not just stop them duh.
LMAO good luck in court
You're retarded.
This is some of the dumbest postings I've ever fucking seen.
>people arguing in favor of "stopping the threat" instead of ending them permanently
My dudes, do you have ANY idea how many cops have been killed AFTER ceasing fire and thinking the threat was "incapacitated".
Do you know how many shitbags had fatal wounds and killed people in their dying breaths? Do you know how many have just enough fight to be laying on the ground coughing up blood on their last breaths laying in a pool of what used to be their vital organs and manage to get another shot off?
If you have to fire one round, you better not stop fucking idiots.
And this isnt even taking into account the (((free))) legal battles for the bad guy if he lives. Imagine for a second your white cis male right wing extremist gun owner word vs tyrones poor boi dindu nuffin n this current timeline...
If he's black you can always just decide to kill him. If he's not black your legal battle will be easier if he's left alive.
Dead men tell no tales idiot.
I was referring to
>I'm trying to kill them not just stop them duh
>idiot
I mean Jesus Christ what a top tier argument. I dismantled modern racial theory by saying "idiot." Very powerful argument.