Handgun Stopping Power Revisited

[pettypace]

A google search for "handgun stopping power" (without the quotes) reports "About 7,060,000 results". A google site search (site:castboolits.gunloads.com handgun stopping power (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acastboolits.gunloads.com+handgun+s topping+power&oq=site&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j69i60j69i59j69i60.3276j 0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)) shows that about 800 of those results are from castboolits.

In those 7 million internet pages (or even just in the 800 pages from this forum) there must be a lot of different opinions about "handgun stopping power." My own opinion is that the FBI probably got it right in 1989 when Special Agent Urey Patrick wrote "The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity." (http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf)

But that was some time ago. I'm curious not just about the current thinking, but also about the history of the idea. What theories have been proposed? What theories have been rejected and why? And what theories have been generally accepted? Any thoughts?

[DougGuy]

Afaik, nothing "Official" has been changed much. It comes down to if it starts with a 4, it has MUCH more stopping power than if it starts with a 3 or a 9.

The same 1911 that served our boys in two world wars plus a whole list of other armed conflicts still has the same stopping power it had when it was invented, and if the discussion of stopping power is limited to handguns, it then branches into two basic areas, stopping power against human assailants or stopping power against dangerous game. The first scenario hasn't changed much since WWI with the exception of some well engineered defense rounds. The second scenario has grown considerably with the advent of the big bore cartridges in revolvers.

[ddixie884]

"They all fall to Hard Ball". Well about 85% any way...........

Just kidding, ha ha ah.............

[iomskp]

About 30 or so years ago I was show a book called body ballistics, it covered all sorts of bullet wounds from all manner of firearms I, have not seen the book since but that was the best book on the subject I have ever seen.

[snowwolfe]

A google search for "handgun stopping power" (without the quotes) reports "About 7,060,000 results". A google site search (site:castboolits.gunloads.com handgun stopping power (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acastboolits.gunloads.com+handgun+s topping+power&oq=site&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j69i60j69i59j69i60.3276j 0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)) shows that about 800 of those results are from castboolits.

In those 7 million internet pages (or even just in the 800 pages from this forum) there must be a lot of different opinions about "handgun stopping power." My own opinion is that the FBI probably got it right in 1989 when Special Agent Urey Patrick wrote "The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity." (http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf)

But that was some time ago. I'm curious not just about the current thinking, but also about the history of the idea. What theories have been proposed? What theories have been rejected and why? And what theories have been generally accepted? Any thoughts?

Your asking people to write a book to answer all your questions when Mr Google already answered.
Theories proposed? Rejected? Accepted?
Give me a break.

[scattershot]

The reason the argument rages on, and on, and on, is that they all work. Put one in the right place under the right circumstances, and it will do the job.

[charlie b]

The reason the argument rages on, and on, and on, is that they all work. Put one in the right place under the right circumstances, and it will do the job.

And this has been true since the use of the first knife/spear.

I still remember an article about how the .30-06 was underpowered. The author's hunting party shot a grizzly 6 times and it was still running. The 'mighty' .300WM was brought out and it ended the life. They only had to fire it THREE times. :) Therefore the .300WM was touted as the king of hunting rifles by the author. That is how myths are born.

[Dale53]

pettypace;
I am not a former law enforcement person, but merely a cast bullet shooter and hunter of many, many years. I have no experience in shooting people (thank goodness!). However, using hanguns to shoot many different types of small game (significant numbers) and a half dozen large, corn and bean fed Whitetail Deer, I have come to some real conclusions. Oh, I have also been in on the "autopsies" of 30-35 Canadian Black Bear. Since we were hunting in Canada, no handguns were allowed so my bear was taken with a .375 H&H Magnum.

At any rate, I have learned at least a couple things.

1- All important is where you hit!

2- Bullet nose shape (meplat) is EXTREMELY important!
As an example is the great .45 Auto. It works extremely well in hardball shape but adding an effective meplat GREATLY increases the permanent
wound cavity. You must keep in mind that when using an auto pistol, positive function is extremely important, too. So, a really good meplat must
must be designed to also function reliably with YOUR particular auto pistol.
A couple of examples here: the old, famous H&G #68/69 has a great functional design (proven over decades) and can be run, safely, to 1000 fps
in a good 1911 and would work well. If you prefer the original bullet weight, the Lee cast bullet 230 gr. Truncated Cone functions well in every
1911 I have tried it in (also available in a full metal case design commercially), and has a nice wide meplat that does a considerably better job
than original hardball.

3- The various popular revolver rounds, from .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, .44 Special, and .44 Magnum, along with a good load in the .45 Colt and
others work extremely well with a good Keith design bullet at the velocity that you prefer. For serious work, I, too, favor a caliber that starts with
a ".4"!

4- The various specialty commercial jacketed bullets can offer excellent field results, also, of course.

NOTE: Keep in mind that the politically inspired round nose bullets forced onto Law Enforcement by those in power have caused many, many problems for GOOD people that NEVER should have happened. A perfect example is the round nose, lead, .38 Special that police were forced to use. A proper shape in .38 Special is MUCH more effective than the original round nose!

FWIW
Dale53

[country gent]

When you dont need it they are all to big and cumbersome, but when you need it they could always be bigger

[Hanzy4200]

I have a simple way of showing other shooters my take. We each get a silhouette at 10 yards. I take a decent combat 9mm, and I give them my Magnum Research in .500 Linebaugh. Who puts more, accurate shots where they count? Point being there needs to be a balance. If it takes you 2 seconds to get your sights back on target, or you flinch so much you can't hit COM, horsepower is a moot point. Fight with what you can carry and shoot well. For 90% of people that is a 9mm.

[hoodat]

I haven't really used them, but it looks to me like we have a lot of specially designed, self defense bullets these days which MUST greatly increase the lethality of standard handgun ammo. A lot of these bullets have been developed fairly recently, and for hunting as well as self defense.

A familiar old cartridge like the 9mm, or 38 spec. might well be in an entirely different league, possibly even twice as lethal as it used to be, not because of it's power/velocity, but because of the "meat grinder" type of bullet it may be propelling. jd

[Ural Driver]

The "science" of ammunition manufacturing has change a lot in the last 20-30 years. The 9mm duty round of 1975, bears little resemblance to what is available today. That being said, I carried a 10mm for many years.......because it was the only pistol round (that I was allowed to field) that would reliably penetrate a car door.

[Cosmic_Charlie]

The better shot you are, the better your ability to get multiple shots on target quickly, the more stopping power you have. I would not enjoy trying to stop a brown bear with my Super Blackhawk. Much rather have slugs in my 870.

[charlie b]

Bullet selection is more important than caliber in many cases.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#45ACP

[Cosmic_Charlie]

It is always intriguing to see posts of those that thinks they are going into a firefight with the "enemy " and lay down a line of fire so they can hose down the "enemy" with no consequences like they have implied immunity. Just say "I was in fear of my life" after firing a magazine or two at the "enemy". All will be okay. Yeah right.

Flag goes up, you pound the threat with well placed rounds. Always been the way to survive.

[Bigslug]

The FBI did some minor revisions to the post-Miami '86 protocols, and as I recall, we've been running with the latest of those since about '93.

Shot placement comes first, penetration second, and ONLY AFTER you achieve those two, do we want more diameter.

More specifically 12-18 inches of penetration is the desired range (I think this is largely because a lot of folks still wet their pants at the idea of "over-penetration") and 1.5X original diameter after expansion is optimal - provided it does not compromise a suitable amount of penetration.

The idea of energy transfer and hydrostatic shock have been largely rejected. Simple physics is the reason for the first - you can't knock someone down with a handgun bullet without generating so much recoil that it knocks you down as well. Hyrdostatic effects do not seem to influence permanent cavity size until your projectile strikes at over about 2000 feet per second, so that pretty much takes that capability off the market as far as useful combat handguns goes. Where this has REALLY improved things is that we have gotten rid of the super fast, super light bullets that were supposed to rapidly expand and "smack" the target to the ground - but in reality often failed to penetrate deeply enough to hit something important.

Veral Smith's Jacketed Performance With Cast Bullets is well worth acquiring and reading as it contains a great deal of observations of field performance on live game. He's a big proponent of lots of penetration with a medium to large meplat that leaves a lot of torn tissue in the wound channel, but he does not put a lot of emphasis on making that channel wider than the bullet itself. I think that medically, there's a lot of wisdom here: the wound channel is effectively another vein or artery that the body will bleed out into, so if that wound channel pretty much mimics the diameter of the aorta or vena cava, you are probably not going to "drain the bathtub" a whole lot faster - at least not without stepping up into things much more impressive than any carry-worthy handgun, such as buckshot or slugs.

Rejected also - at least largely in military and LE circles - is that it has to start with the number 4. The above science suggests that - within the available practical power levels - the big stuff is not sufficiently more capable than the 9mm-level rounds shooting proper ammo to offset the liabilities of added recoil and reduced capacity. The Marshall/Sanow studies put all of the major LE calibers in the 88 to 94% range for "one shot stops". Of late, my own personal theory on this is that the 9mm rated on the lower side of that NOT because it's less effective, but because its lower recoil more often allows a second shot to be accurately delivered before the officer can perceive that his first shot worked. This makes the bigger stuff look better on paper, but the practical result is the same.

But of real interest to me is that we seem to be coming back around to desiring performance characteristics of ammo that was being produced in the mid-to-late 1800's. Somewhere out there on the Ether is data produced by shooting classic cap and ball revolvers into the FBI gelatin testing protocols. When you look at this, you will see that the 1858 Remington and 1860 Colt Army .44's will produce a wound track just about identical to what you'll see from the current 147 grain 9mm duty hollowpoints that seem to be doing a wonderful job of solving our problems on the street.

Worth keeping that in mind, before we get TOO proud of how we've advanced.

[pettypace]

The FBI did some minor revisions to the post-Miami '86 protocols, and as I recall, we've been running with the latest of those since about '93.

Shot placement comes first, penetration second, and ONLY AFTER you achieve those two, do we want more diameter.

More specifically 12-18 inches of penetration is the desired range (I think this is largely because a lot of folks still wet their pants at the idea of "over-penetration") and 1.5X original diameter after expansion is optimal - provided it does not compromise a suitable amount of penetration.

The idea of energy transfer and hydrostatic shock have been largely rejected. Simple physics is the reason for the first - you can't knock someone down with a handgun bullet without generating so much recoil that it knocks you down as well. Hyrdostatic effects do not seem to influence permanent cavity size until your projectile strikes at over about 2000 feet per second, so that pretty much takes that capability off the market as far as useful combat handguns goes. Where this has REALLY improved things is that we have gotten rid of the super fast, super light bullets that were supposed to rapidly expand and "smack" the target to the ground - but in reality often failed to penetrate deeply enough to hit something important.

Veral Smith's Jacketed Performance With Cast Bullets is well worth acquiring and reading as it contains a great deal of observations of field performance on live game. He's a big proponent of lots of penetration with a medium to large meplat that leaves a lot of torn tissue in the wound channel, but he does not put a lot of emphasis on making that channel wider than the bullet itself. I think that medically, there's a lot of wisdom here: the wound channel is effectively another vein or artery that the body will bleed out into, so if that wound channel pretty much mimics the diameter of the aorta or vena cava, you are probably not going to "drain the bathtub" a whole lot faster - at least not without stepping up into things much more impressive than any carry-worthy handgun, such as buckshot or slugs.

Rejected also - at least largely in military and LE circles - is that it has to start with the number 4. The above science suggests that - within the available practical power levels - the big stuff is not sufficiently more capable than the 9mm-level rounds shooting proper ammo to offset the liabilities of added recoil and reduced capacity. The Marshall/Sanow studies put all of the major LE calibers in the 88 to 94% range for "one shot stops". Of late, my own personal theory on this is that the 9mm rated on the lower side of that NOT because it's less effective, but because its lower recoil more often allows a second shot to be accurately delivered before the officer can perceive that his first shot worked. This makes the bigger stuff look better on paper, but the practical result is the same.

But of real interest to me is that we seem to be coming back around to desiring performance characteristics of ammo that was being produced in the mid-to-late 1800's. Somewhere out there on the Ether is data produced by shooting classic cap and ball revolvers into the FBI gelatin testing protocols. When you look at this, you will see that the 1858 Remington and 1860 Colt Army .44's will produce a wound track just about identical to what you'll see from the current 147 grain 9mm duty hollowpoints that seem to be doing a wonderful job of solving our problems on the street.

Worth keeping that in mind, before we get TOO proud of how we've advanced.

Well done, Bigslug! Lots to digest, there, and it's probably best digested in small bites. Thanks for taking the time to put all that together!

[Daekar]

I was going to chime in about how things have changed and how pretty much anything 9mm or larger performs the same nowadays, but I see Bigslug beat me to it.

What we have learned in the last few decades is that handguns are bad, and that most of them are equally bad. Carry what you shoot well and load quality bullets with a good hp design or a large meplat... and don't worry about it.

[memtb]

My opinion on the subject may be a bit different than many. I think that caliber importance varies with the “subject of your affections” at the moment!

As stated and well documented.....bullet placement is paramount! However, also stated, the bullet must have enough structural integrity to reach the vitals. Bullet shape is, as stated, is also important. It is very difficult to dispute any of these statements.

Now comes the caveat! What is the threat that will be encountered?

If human, as the “vast” majority of situations will be, the 9mm with good, proven bullets will work quite well. The firearms are easily controlled for accurate (semi accurate) fire under duress, by most competent shooters. A good, defense type 9mm bullet, well placed will generally end the aggression. Most humans, except those under the influence of drugs or having severe mental issues, will respond to most any hits from any firearm. The human also recognizes that the victim has the capability defending themselves....no longer a helpless victim. Most assailants will respond by leaving in search of easier prey! Often, the mere presence of a firearm by the intended victim, ends the assault!

If the attacker is an animal, or a human with impaired thought processes (mental or drugs)....this offers a different situation. The humans may not show the typical human response of self preservation, and the drugs or mental impairment may slow the reaction to a fatal wound. In these situations, in my opinion, there is “no substitute for cubic inches”! Though, bullet placement, and bullet construction are still of paramount importance.....however, increased tissue damage (though permanent wound size and wound depth) are a plus. I don’t think that many of us, knowing without a doubt we would find ourselves in this scenario would choose a lesser cartridge over a large bore, much more powerful handgun!

Given the above situations, and my innate ability to consistently prove “Murphy’s Law”, my assailant will be a 400+ pound, heavily muscled, “hopped-up”, biker dressed in a heavy leather vest.....I’ll choose my cartridge/bullet accordingly! :bigsmyl2: memtb

[Cosmic_Charlie]

Do you really think that will go over well in the Walmart parking lot or inside Walmart or the local convenience store when you jerk out your handgun and hose down the assailant spraying and praying even though you are cool as a frozen cucumber and not scared one bit?

Who said anything about spraying and praying? More like you take your time getting good hits in a hurry.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Two Law Enforcement Officers, Marshall and Sanow, wrote several books, among them "Stopping Power, Street Stoppers, and Handgun Stopping Power." These three are sitting in my book case looking at me as I write this. What is different about their books is their approach to the question. They forgo much of the ballistic jello and velocity testing, although there is some of that, and instead pursue "what really worked".

They did surveys of all the law enforcement agencies that would respond as to their involved shootings, inquiring as to caliber, bullet, load, etc. and limited their results to one-shot stops. One shot stops because that is a good indicator of stopping power, as multiple hits with anything are likely to be effective. The results are fascinating to read, and not at all what you would expect. Stopping power seems to be greatly dependent on (1) where the subject was hit, (2) the bullet design. Sometimes a .25 ACP was lethal, and sometimes a .44 Magnum failed. 9mm with modern JHP loads seemed all around very effective.

Their books are becoming slightly obsolete now, simply because there are new bullet designs and new loads constantly under development, and more data has been produced from their use. However, their last book had such developments included as Gold Dot, Hydrashok, etc., and the books remain a "must read" for those interested in what works and what doesn't.

DG

[Burnt Fingers]

IMHO a handgun is a poor choice if you know trouble is coming. I'll take a rifle every time.

However a handgun is much easier to carry around in daily civilian life.

Short of a shot into the brain housing group, pelvic cradle, or a spinal hit you're not going to stop a threat till they want to stop or bleed out. Some people when grazed on the arm will fall down and give up. Others absorb multiple fatal shots and keep on going till they run out of blood.

Handguns don't have "stopping power" IMHO, they have "stopping suggestions".

[dverna]

I look at things a bit differently.

First is the persons capabilities. This factors how well they shoot and the degree of training they have. Go to a Cowboy Action match and see how many "gun people" miss a 10" plate at 7 yards when under pressure to perform. Note the plate is not armed or moving...just sitting there taunting you...LOL.

The training I have had has stressed two shots in CM. So, a one shot kill statistic has little importance unless I miss the first shot. Most of the time, if you have either the ability, or are close enough, there will be two (or more) hits.

When you are under duress, you will revert to your training. If you have been trained by most modern schools of self defense you will automatically be firing at least two shots. You should fire until the threat is neutralized.

All this to say, if the .357 Mag with a 125gr commercially HP load is the best one shot performer, that does not check all the boxes for me.

I am a good pistol shot. I have shot under the stress of competition where every shot counts. I have done well most of the time and screwed up too. I want more than one effective round to land on my aggressor. I know I may miss so I value firepower wrt to both terminal ballistics and how many rounds are in the weapon.

That leads to consideration of the platform. I prefer HC semi-automatic guns even if I may never need more than 5 or 6 shots. Because...what if I do????

As a result, I feel less prepared when carrying the Kahr than when carrying the Glock. Both will get the job done, but the Glock can "do more work". This is different than "spray and pray" thinking than some users of HC pistols end up at.

IMHO, you are a fool to take one shot at an aggressor if you are using a pistol. It shows you have little or no training.

My capabilities are not sufficient to depend on one perfectly placed .357 Mag when I am messing my shorts. I will take two or three less than perfect shots that hit CM. My highest scores have been with the lowly 9mm. It is not for everyone but it is what works best for me. In fact, I ended up buying a 9mm conversion barrel for my Glock 22. I carry 124 gr. Speer Gold Dots.

If I was younger, I would likely use the .40 Short and Weak.

[ddixie884]

I am probably behind the times but I still have the feeling that the old Cooper or Taylor Short form with a 160 power factor based on momentum not muzzle energy is close. The factor of multiple hits would enter in. I think a modern 9mm defense load is probably a good trade off to a more powerful load in an auto. I also believe I'd rather have my Kel-Tec .380 than my fists and feet at my advanced age'70'. I like a .4 or more a lot better in my inner mind.

[charlie b]

Nope. :)

And I still don't have a solid preference one way or the other. Decades ago I would not be caught without a .357mag or .45acp. These days a 9mm or .38spl is just fine with me, loaded with good ammo. I still carry the magnum or .45 every now and then.

I like the amount of effort Hornady has gone to in developing their Critical Defense/Duty loads.

Sent from my SM-P580 using Tapatalk

[pettypace]

I like the amount of effort Hornady has gone to in developing their Critical Defense/Duty loads.


Does that include Hornady's .38 Special Critical Defense Lite?

I was using CD Lites (and Silvertips) as "calibration" loads when testing homemade .38 Special "duplex" loads in Clear Ballistic gel. The CD Lites and Silvertips both showed consistent under-penetration. Here's a typical example:

285993

The CB gel block are each 11" long -- re-cast in GI ammo cans. All shots entered from the left. The Critical Defense Lite only made about 9".

The five shots in the second block are the back bullets of a duplex load I called the "Super (Duper) Police" -- a 95 grain Lee TC in front and 105 grain H&G WC base-forward in the back all at about 650 f/s. The back WC's averaged about 15" and the front TC's penetrated the full 22" of CB gel.

[Char-Gar]

This subject is a bit stomach churning, having read this stuff for over 50 years. There is no and will never be agreement, just opinions with cherry picked facts as proof. Many years ago, Keith wrote in regard to handgun effectiveness on pissed off humans, use the biggest caliber you can shoot effectively. That is was good advice then and is good advice now.

[Bigbore5]

Stopping power is simple. Load up anything you can shoot well. Practice alot. If you have to use it the Mozambique drill. Even the 22 is a stopper with two in the chest and one in the head, but if he didn't drop, run the drill again.

[downzero]

Afaik, nothing "Official" has been changed much. It comes down to if it starts with a 4, it has MUCH more stopping power than if it starts with a 3 or a 9.

The same 1911 that served our boys in two world wars plus a whole list of other armed conflicts still has the same stopping power it had when it was invented, and if the discussion of stopping power is limited to handguns, it then branches into two basic areas, stopping power against human assailants or stopping power against dangerous game. The first scenario hasn't changed much since WWI with the exception of some well engineered defense rounds. The second scenario has grown considerably with the advent of the big bore cartridges in revolvers.

You must not have read the entire last 40+ years of terminal ballistics articles and research, from private sources or the FBI. You'd have to purposely not be seeking the information to think that, for example, a .40 S&W is acceptable for self defense whereas a .357 Magnum is not. Even without discussing the relevant data and opinions of various experts and experiments done by them, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that not only is your statement closer to false than true, it really doesn't even add anything meaningful to the discussion at all.

Pistols have had zero impact on the outcome of any war. As much as I love the 1911, it is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

A lot of studying and research has been done on this issue, so much so that it's really not even worth discussing on a forum. Look for people who use the scientific method and evaluate these questions without bias and you might be surprised where it leads you.

[Doughty]

downzero,
I guess I read the OP different than you. I took it to mean, "Is there anything new?" I thought it is "worth" discussing. If you didn't, why are you reading and posting here?

Pistols may not have much impact on the outcome of wars, but they have had a lot of impact for some individuals in war. If you are one of those individuals, then a pistol can be very relevant. So happens it was a 1911 that was very relevant to me. Oops, that might make me biased. Hope it's okay if I post, even if it doesn't add anything meaningful.

[downzero]

Now that the thread has gotten serious where do you think it will lead and/or lead to the changing of the thoughts on what most carry?
I will not change my carry firearms or cartridges. Who will change? I say very, very, very, very few.

I think it'll lead down the same rabbit hole that every internet gun forum goes when this topic comes up. Some will repeat old wives tales and gun shop folklore, others will talk about new FBI evidence, someone will say he's been carrying a 32 ACP since 1930 and he doesn't want to change, some other guy will say he carries a .45 because they don't make a .46, hopefully the ones who were simply ignorant and not willfully blind will at least have seen the scientific evidence, and it'll go for way more pages than the topic warrants.

And then we'll all go back to casting bullets.


downzero,
I guess I read the OP different than you. I took it to mean, "Is there anything new?" I thought it is "worth" discussing. If you didn't, why are you reading and posting here?


I don't because I scrolled through two pages to see people repeating the same gun shop folklore from 100 years ago in a new format. I clicked hoping to see a new bullet design, some new scientific research on bullet performance, some new FBI study on bullet performance that had new bullets previously unconsidered, or maybe just a simple point that cast bullets work because what's old is new again. When that wasn't the case, I took the opportunity to let anyone who started at the end and worked up to know that all of this was more of the same nonsense instead of genuine discussion.

[poppy42]

Ok I wasn’t going to post, but I can’t resist. All these what’s the right caliber topics remind me of beating a dead horse with a stick! Plain and simple the only way to ensure a one shot stop IN ANY MAMMAL is the separate the brain stem from the rest of the nervous system. Period! I don’t know any avid hunter, that’s being honest, that hasn’t seen a deer hit squarely in the boiler still manage to run for 100 yards. Can you say adrenaline! The same thing applies to two Legged mammals. There was a medal of honor recipient from World War II that I believed sustained eight or more shots fired from a German machine gun nest and he still managed to take out that nest, and attempt to take out another one. I apologize for not remembering the heroes name. The Internet is full of stories of people being shot in the head and surviving, some severely disabled while others live a perfectly normal life. Now with all that being said. You must understand that the size of the area of the human brain stem is the size somewhere between a quarter and a half dollar. There aren’t a lot of self defensive shooters that can consistently hit an area that small under extreme stressful conditions. It can certainly be done with a 22 under deal conditions. As a matter of fact it can be done with the rock! Unfortunately I can’t think of any self defensive situations that occur during ideal conditions. So what is the answer to the problem? Carry the largest caliber weapon that you can shoot accurately. Practice practice practice so that you can consistently hit the center mass of a man size target. Choice of caliber is completely irrelevant if you can consistently use proper shot placement. What has often been said the 22 that you carry is a lot better than a 44 magnum sitting in your safe.

[Bigslug]

. . .If the attacker is an animal, or a human with impaired thought processes (mental or drugs)....this offers a different situation. The humans may not show the typical human response of self preservation, and the drugs or mental impairment may slow the reaction to a fatal wound. In these situations, in my opinion, there is “no substitute for cubic inches”! Though, bullet placement, and bullet construction are still of paramount importance.....however, increased tissue damage (though permanent wound size and wound depth) are a plus. I don’t think that many of us, knowing without a doubt we would find ourselves in this scenario would choose a lesser cartridge over a large bore, much more powerful handgun!


I've shifted gears toward smaller somewhat on this topic as well, and playing around with cast bullets has been a big part of that change in thinking.

How a bullet penetrates depends GREATLY on its construction. You can have two 147 grain 9mm bullets at equal speed, and one of them will stop in 3-4 milk jugs of water and the other will not be stopped by nine or more.

How a bullet damages tissue can depend GREATLY on its shape. If penetration AND tissue damage are required, it's hard to top a non-expanding, heavy-for-caliber WFN design for the task.

And then we start splitting hairs. Yes, if you are hairy-chested enough to take on Cape buffalo with handguns, a 300 grain .44 will be better at a stem-to-stern raking shot than a 147 grain 9mm flat point, but on things that are smaller and softer. . .both rounds will penetrate a lot, and both are below the 2000 fps threshold of useful hydrostatic effects, so what we really have to consider is just how much more useful a "drain" does 0.07" of diameter REALLY make? Especially when you can install the very slightly smaller "drains" at a rate of about 3 or 4 to 1?

I think much of our "bigger is better" rationale grew out of the middle decades of the 20th Century when we thought everything had to expand, and bigger often became necessary to penetrate sufficiently once it did. We're getting over that, but old dogmas die hard.

[gwpercle]

A google search for "handgun stopping power" (without the quotes) reports "About 7,060,000 results". A google site search (site:castboolits.gunloads.com handgun stopping power (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acastboolits.gunloads.com+handgun+s topping+power&oq=site&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j69i60j69i59j69i60.3276j 0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)) shows that about 800 of those results are from castboolits.

In those 7 million internet pages (or even just in the 800 pages from this forum) there must be a lot of different opinions about "handgun stopping power." My own opinion is that the FBI probably got it right in 1989 when Special Agent Urey Patrick wrote "The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity." (http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf)

But that was some time ago. I'm curious not just about the current thinking, but also about the history of the idea. What theories have been proposed? What theories have been rejected and why? And what theories have been generally accepted? Any thoughts?

No theory ... actual fact ... a 22LR HP bullet fired at a distance of 6 feet that enters the right side of your head , just below the temple will mess up your day . I stopped doing what I was doing .
I still carry several fragments from the HP in my head . It stopped me ... I can't calculate stopping power or give any calculations or fancy fomula's ... just take my word for it ... a 22 LR to the head will drop a man .
It felt like I was hit upside my head with a baseball bat . Took me right out and down for the count .
No statistics here ..True Life Experience ... I lived it .
Gary

[downzero]

I think much of our "bigger is better" rationale grew out of the middle decades of the 20th Century when we thought everything had to expand, and bigger often became necessary to penetrate sufficiently once it did. We're getting over that, but old dogmas die hard.

I think it's older than that. In the 19th Century, with black powder, the only way to make something kill better and faster was to make it bigger. After smokeless, cartridges have become smaller, more efficient, flatter shooting, and the circular error probability got smaller with time.

[BamaNapper]

OK, I haven't been reading forums for 50 years, and I haven't been sitting around gun shops swapping stories much. And I don't believe I've ever read a book on the study of gunshot wounds. I cast, reload and make holes in paper targets because it's fun. I have a couple of semi-auto handguns, but the majority are revolvers with a couple single shots thrown in for entertainment. I have a CC permit, but only because I need one for the Blackhawk under my jacket during deer season. I don't choose ammo based on lethality except for hunting. All of our interests point in different directions. Sorry, but I don't find the topic ridiculous or monotonous.

But I do have a question to ask. Is there even a consensus on what 'stopping power' means? It seems some here lean toward equating it with lethality. That's not my take on it. With others it appears to be the sheer damage done by the projectile, or at least violence upon impact. That's closer to my take, but not quite there. And as noted, a well placed shot can sever the spinal cord on man or beast for the ultimate stopping power regardless of caliber. So, is there a definition to center a discussion on, or do we simply tack off on random tangents like we're arguing over who the greatest super hero is? Or would we end up in the same circular discussion trying to define it?

[Bigslug]

I think it's older than that. In the 19th Century, with black powder, the only way to make something kill better and faster was to make it bigger. After smokeless, cartridges have become smaller, more efficient, flatter shooting, and the circular error probability got smaller with time.

Or at least the transition from round ball (which is the worst shape possible for both flight and penetration) to conoidals (which grant great flexibility). As far as game is concerned, the biggest difference between a .45 ACP hardball and a 500 grain .45-70 GI load is a hella lot of sectional density - which most critters smaller than bison won't require.

This thread piquing my curiosity, I did a quick web search for diameter of human blood vessels, which tops out at just under an inch - which just about has to be the aortic arch at the top of the heart. The aorta itself seems to run between about 0.6" to 0.85" - depending on where you measure. Interestingly, this is just about identical to the diameters of expanded duty rounds in the common .35 to .45 caliber offerings. All of our roughly 5 quarts circulate through that diameter of pipe in about a minute.

Now maybe we've got some hydraulic engineers here who can more learnedly discuss the effects. . .that bullet's channel may intersect with many blood vessels large and small, but they're all part of the same system and all pressurized by the same pump. Generally, though, I think what I'm getting at here is that an aorta-sized hole transecting the torso is cause for a really bad day - regardless of the headstamp on the cartridge that made it.

[Gunners Mate]

IMHO a handgun is a poor choice if you know trouble is coming. I'll take a rifle every time.

However a handgun is much easier to carry around in daily civilian life.

Short of a shot into the brain housing group, pelvic cradle, or a spinal hit you're not going to stop a threat till they want to stop or bleed out. Some people when grazed on the arm will fall down and give up. Others absorb multiple fatal shots and keep on going till they run out of blood.

Handguns don't have "stopping power" IMHO, they have "stopping suggestions".

Having first hand experience with an armed intruder (drug addict high as a kite) in my home quite sometime ago, I 100% agree with a handgun is not a primary defensive weapon. I had both a 12ga win Pump riot loaded with a staggered loads of 00 buck and slugs and a 357 S&W 686. I gave the pistol to my wife and reached for the 12ga, we met in the hall about 15 feet separated us he got one round off a 9mm, catching me in the calf and I ended him with a 00 buck and a slug in that order the 00 stunned him but did not stop him, that shot was a little low the slug entered right at about the adams apple and exited completely severing his spine. Drugs and adrenalin do strange things I did not even know i was shot till it was over. So I would surmise that things may have turned out differently had I picked the 357 that night or he had a shotgun or rifle. After a couple of decades of reflection I drew the conclusion that there is no such thing as over kill when it comes to your life or your family. If someone made a 10ga pump riot it would be in the corner instead of the 12ga.

[jim147]

I don't care what round you carry. You fire until the aggressor stops. Period. That is stopping power.

[cainttype]

…In those 7 million internet pages (or even just in the 800 pages from this forum) there must be a lot of different opinions about "handgun stopping power." My own opinion is that the FBI probably got it right in 1989 when Special Agent Urey Patrick wrote "The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity." (http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf)

But that was some time ago. I'm curious not just about the current thinking, but also about the history of the idea. What theories have been proposed? What theories have been rejected and why? And what theories have been generally accepted? Any thoughts?


The various opinions on modern “stopping power” concepts can often be traced to conflicting conclusions drawn by real forensic experts and statisticians being compared to junk research that has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, like the Marshall/Sanow literature.
The desired effect in all of these comparisons is to end a dangerous encounter requiring deadly force immediately. If “immediately” isn’t accomplished “As quickly as possible” is a secondary goal.

In agreeing with the FBI assessment, a little clarification might be in order.
Penetration is of utmost importance because… 1)Reaching the vitals is critical, but reaching the SPINE results in instantaneous incapacitation….Two holes bleed out faster than one…Knowing that heavy clothing and/or heavy bone (arms, for instance) will reduce penetration is something that needs to be considered. The FBI trials after “The Shootout in Miami” fiasco kept that front and center during their research.
2)Permanent wound channel… Two holes bleed out faster than one (see above)… Larger diameter bleeds out faster than small… Sometimes lost in the discussion, a smaller bullet that “almost” clips the spine could be a larger diameter that DID clip the spine (see (1) above).
None of the above means anything if you miss.

My conclusion/opinion… The largest diameter PERMANENT wound channel that reliably penetrates from any angle through the vitals AND spinal area is a VERY good choice, if you can deliver the bullet where you need it.

[Krag 1901]

The Best Handgun Caliber - A Real World Study (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nycYxb-zNwc)

1700 encounters nasalized. SOMe real data.
End result most any hand gun is about as effective as another. Carry what you can hit with 100% of the time. .380 to .44 Mag!

[cainttype]

With handguns often accounting for 8K-12K+ non-suicide deaths (homicides, self-defense, and accidental) and another 60-100K+ non-fatal injuries every year, I’d not put much value in yet another “Real World Study” by an amateur citing only 1700+ cases over a 10+ year time frame.

The “Stopping Power” question should be a search for a best case scenario if the target does not WANT to stop. It attempts to identify the potential terminal performance of projectiles on targets that would FORCE a stoppage, as rapidly as possible, and that can/does often require more than one shot.

The human “animal” differs from similar sized quadrupeds in it’s tendency to simply quit, as in, “OUCH! That hurts!… I QUIT!!”.
Studies using “One-shot stop” reasoning mean little, actually nothing, when an assailant receives a non-lethal wound and decides he’d rather not see if another would cause more discomfort, so he quits.
Quitting is different than being “stopped” against your will.
If vastly dissimilar handgun cartridges were really as similar in effect as that “Study” suggests we could simply recommend to all the medium game (deer, bear) handgun hunters to lighten their load by leaving their heavy 44 Mags behind and carrying a lightweight 380 ACP, or 32.

After careful consideration of your own circumstances, carry what you’re most comfortable with.
Anything you have when you need it is better than the one you left at home due to size, proficiency, or comfort concerns.

[cainttype]

https://lawreader.com/?p=12610

The provided links are a portion of what used to be a fantastic site for professional reviews… Too bad it’s no longer accessible.

[cainttype]

The OP asked for opinions, if that bothers you it seems odd that you continuously post your’s.

[Jtarm]

Conventional wisdom appears to be that with any round from .38 spl/9mm up .44 magnum/.45 Colt, it requires an average of 2-3 center of mass hits to “stop” a person.

What this means, I have no idea. I don’t think it really measures “stopping power”, because if you quickly deliver 2-3 COM hits, how do we know if the 2nd & 3rd were necessary?

IMO, while it’s been criticized and is probably not very relevant to real-world gunfights, Marshall-Sanow produced the best guide to raw handgun “stopping power”. They rated the .357 125 JHP head & shoulders above the pack, IIRC scoring one-hit stops about 90% of the time.

[cainttype]

Originally posted by 44MAG#1
“ Exactly, opinions are all they are. Just like there have been MANY OPINIONS posted. Have any of them settled anything?
If there has been anything settled I must have missed it.
So, I am wrong I guess by posting on a subject that has, over the years, been discussed more than throughly.”






A google search for "handgun stopping power" (without the quotes) reports "About 7,060,000 results". A google site search (site:castboolits.gunloads.com handgun stopping power (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acastboolits.gunloads.com+handgun+s topping+power&oq=site&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j69i60j69i59j69i60.3276j 0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)) shows that about 800 of those results are from castboolits.

In those 7 million internet pages (or even just in the 800 pages from this forum) there must be a lot of different opinions about "handgun stopping power." My own opinion is that the FBI probably got it right in 1989 when Special Agent Urey Patrick wrote "The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity." (http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf)

But that was some time ago. I'm curious not just about the current thinking, but also about the history of the idea. What theories have been proposed? What theories have been rejected and why? And what theories have been generally accepted? Any thoughts?

You must have misread the opening post, which asked for opinions, references, and history.
Seems reasonable enough to me.

If someone wanted to contribute with a coherent line of thought, logical reasoning, and voiced his own opinion, I think the OP would have gotten his request (and possibly appreciated it). That was the intent of the thread as he explained it.
If someone simply wants to constantly voice his opposition to anyone having an open discussion, say 10+ times in less than 60 replies, he would be treading on the definition of Internet Troll….

Contrary to what you have stated, the Science behind Wound Ballistics is NOT actually argued by those familiar with the subject. It is well-defined, and widely accepted by everyone that has reputable standing.
The “arguments” arise from those that have been duped, by junk research pushed by incompetents and referred to as “Studies”.

[charlie b]

Your link above just verified what most say. Immediate incapacitation, regardless of mental aspects, requires disruption of the CNS. One reference cited bleed out as a source of CNS disruption, ie, stop blood flow to brain will disrupt the CNS. Minimum bleed out time of at least 4sec was determined, and that did not account for how long the brain would continue to function without blood flow. I had read a number of 7 seconds of brain function after the heart stops.

As you point out, and has been pointed out by many over the years, the bullet must be able to penetrate to the spine/brain and then damage it.

A wound analysis I read years ago indicated that a temporary wound cavity might induce a disruption of the CNS in the spine, but, due to their testing they could not tell if that results in a permanent disruption or only temporary. I never saw any more after that which indicates to me that either 1) this may be a viable theory but no data can be found to verify, 2) there were no more suitable subjects to evaluate or 3) it is not valid. The theory included analysis of the 'conductivity' of the spinal fluid, temporary disruption of that 'conductivity', and an assumption that recovery of that 'conductivity' required a certain amount of time [conductivity is my word, I cannot remember the medical term they used]. They related this effect to the temporary effect of a blow to the head causing loss of consciousness.

[cainttype]

https://www.pistolsmith.com/threads/street-stoppers-fackler.1420/

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?19329-Marshall-and-Sanow


You might find these reviews and articles interesting if you haven’t read them already.

[44MAG#1]

Statistics can be manipulated to prove what the compiler of those statistics wants to prove. One can gather statistics to generate Confirmation Bias.

[cainttype]

Statistics can be manipulated to prove what the compiler of those statistics wants to prove. One can gather statistics to generate Confirmation Bias.

So after deleting a dozen posts where you disparage the mere existence of this thread, you return to posting in it again within hours….
Yet, after all those posts, you still haven’t given an “opinion” as requested by the OP, or provided your reasoning behind your opinion to answer his question.
Odd behavior, for sure.

“Confirmation Bias” is best eliminated by proper “Peer Review”.
The experts cited in those links have undergone extensive peer reviews. Their methodology and conclusions have been validated numerous times by their respective scientific communities.

By contrast there has been zero professional peer reviews substantiating the “data” presented as proof for the “One Shot Stop” theorists. They have, in fact, been thoroughly debunked and discredited.
That is fact, not opinion.

[44MAG#1]

So after deleting a dozen posts where you disparage the mere existence of this thread, you return to posting in it again within hours….
Yet, after all those posts, you still haven’t given an “opinion” as requested by the OP, or provided your reasoning behind your opinion to answer his question.
Odd behavior, for sure.

“Confirmation Bias” is best eliminated by proper “Peer Review”.
The experts cited in those links have undergone extensive peer reviews. Their methodology and conclusions have been validated numerous times by their respective scientific communities.

By contrast there has been zero professional peer reviews substantiating the “data” presented as proof for the “One Shot Stop” theorists. They have, in fact, been thoroughly debunked and discredited.
That is fact, not opinion.

Debunked and discredited by whom, a 9MM lover, a 45 Auto lover? Maybe a 357 Mag lover?
Maybe a 25 Auto lover?

[Outpost75]

https://www.1911forum.com/threads/i-thought-sanows-study-was-exposed-as-a-fraud-how-come.73146/

Closing the Book on Marshall & Sanow's One-shot Stopping Power Fraud

Over the past couple of years we've published several articles presenting evidence that discredits the Marshall & Sanow one-shot stopping power system of rating "bullet effectiveness". Our purpose in beating this dead horse was to present our criticisms from many different angles so that our message could be understood by the widest audience possible. The final chapter is now being written. We're closing the book on Marshall and Sanow by making several reference articles freely available on the Internet, where they'll be available to anyone and everyone who's interested in the details. As we put the Marshall - Sanow fraud to rest, we offer the following final commentary. Immediately following our remarks are links to reference articles that have never before been made available to you on the Internet.
The professional wound ballistics community believes that both Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have intentionally misrepresented Marshall's "one-shot stop data" as a valid statistical sampling of "actual street results". Valid statistical samplings always report a plus or minus percentage of sampling error, which is based on consideration and evaluation of all factors that affect statistical certainty. This vital statistical process allows researchers to determine how meaningful or meaningless the findings are. Fackler's article, Too Good to be True, discusses, among other things, the significance of determining statistical certainty. Marshall & Sanow have never performed a statistical certainty analysis of Marshall's one-shot stop data. They present raw "data," which is totally meaningless in context even if it was honestly collected and examined as claimed. Marshall's sampling methodology and the manner in which his data is presented are no more accurate or credible than any other nonscientific (for entertainment only) survey, and this generously assumes that Marshall is being completely honest.
Anyone who still believes the Marshall "findings" to be true should submit one of Marshall's "one-shot stop" books or articles to a professional statistics organization that has absolutely no interest in ballistics or the outcome, like http://www.westat.com. An unbiased organization such this is fully qualified to analyze and critique the validity of Marshall's methodology and "findings".

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To read the rest here is the link to the site.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tactical.htm

[cainttype]

Debunked and discredited by whom, a 9MM lover, a 45 Auto lover? Maybe a 357 Mag lover?
Maybe a 25 Auto lover?

So you posted a dozen posts protesting the existence of this thread, then you ran back and deleted them when it was pointed out that such behavior was “trollish”.
Within hours you returned, minus the paper trail, and continue attempting to disrupt the thread while STILL avoiding replying to the OP…. Bizarre behavior, to be honest.

The questions presented by the OP was 1)if YOU even have an opinion on the subject?
2) Could you express a coherent line of reasoning as to why you might have that opinion?
3) Could you provide reference or history supporting your point of view.

You have consistently failed to answer any of the OP’s questions.
You could contribute to the thread if you chose to offer a reasoned opinion, but so far not a single post from you has had any value to the discussion.
It’s not too late…


Wikipedia defines an Internet Troll as:

"a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific goal.

“Digressive… off-topic… normalizing tangential discussion..”
On full display here, but it doesn’t have to be.

[1eyedjack]

2 or 3 well placed 22lr beats a 1911in a sock swung around your head!! I like bigger IF you can control it and consistently hit your target in the vitals ! a 12ga is effective but not very good for concealed carry & big holes in walls & doors next to an assailant don't usually even slow them down...accurate hits count misses just...well miss!! Use the biggest you can shoot WELL & can & will carry . Wifes 1st gun was a Walther CCP , great gun but too heavy to carry in her purse now a bodyguard .38 is her companion & no safety or slide lock to fumble with no limp wrist caused mal-functions that can happen with semi autos...

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Some folks don't see the forest for the trees. M & S reported actual results of actual events under actual circumstances. They never said this or that works all the time, nor did they say that you should use this or that. Some more scientific, scholastic types heavily criticized them because they were LEOs instead of lab rats, but the lab rats never strapped on a badge and gun and went out on the street. Any statistics that they arrived at, or any observations they made were just that, based on the cases and data reported, and not at all claimed to be any of the rules based at the founding of the universe. Their point is that anything can work some of the time, and anything can fail some of the time. As I stated in an earlier post, their entire report is based on one shot stops. Not multiple shots, which be it a .25 ACP or a .44 Magnum will likely result in stops. The idea was to a great extent to examine what commercial loadings of each caliber proved the most effective under those circumstances. You can blow up all the jello you desire, but it is not like facing a felon hyped up with adrenalin or narcotics. There's an old saying, "Figures lie and liars figure." The point is not how big a wound cavity you can make in the jello, it is what stopped a felon in those particular reported cases. It is dishonest to criticize their work for not being more than it is or was meant to be. Nothing stops you from pursuing your research and stating your case, but if I'm a young cop going out on the street deciding which caliber and load to carry, I'll give a long more credence to M&S's findings than those of jello busters and calculators. When that 9mm JHP is headed your way, throw your research up in front of yourself as a shield and see if it will stop. I think it's called "Professional Jealously", and "Gee, I wish I would have done that."

DG

[Piedmont]

I personally don't care if M&S data was sent to a professional statistics organization for review. Give me a break. I hope others are laughing too. If most of us here wrote a book we wouldn't include + - ranges or try to kiss Martin Fackler's butt either. That does not make us liars.

A lot of people are harsh with M&S and I don't think that is warranted. I don't know either of them, but give them the benefit of any doubt. They were publishing interesting actual data when no one else was, unless you count Jeff Cooper telling us .45 hardball dropped them 19 times out of twenty. Where did he get that? I'm sure it wasn't scientific.

[cainttype]

Some folks don't see the forest for the trees. M & S reported actual results of actual events under actual circumstances….

That’s funny… Obvious, ironic, but yet still funny.
If you think the M-S garbage deserves serious consideration you have been mislead, like so many others.

I try to avoid long posts, but it appears warranted on occasion…


http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/father-of-modern-wound-ballistics/
Insight on a real expert.

https://www.pistolsmith.com/threads/street-stoppers-fackler.1420/
A review from a real expert of the sham BS referred to as “research” and published titled “Street Stoppers…The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results”.



Taken from the Suarez International site, in case someone can’t follow a link..

“Closing the Book on Marshall & Sanow's One-shot Stopping Power Fraud

Over the past couple of years we've published several articles presenting evidence that discredits the Marshall & Sanow one-shot stopping power system of rating "bullet effectiveness". Our purpose in beating this dead horse was to present our criticisms from many different angles so that our message could be understood by the widest audience possible. The final chapter is now being written. We're closing the book on Marshall and Sanow by making several reference articles freely available on the Internet, where they'll be available to anyone and everyone who's interested in the details. As we put the Marshall - Sanow fraud to rest, we offer the following final commentary. Immediately following our remarks are links to reference articles that have never before been made available to you on the Internet.

The professional wound ballistics community believes that both Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have intentionally misrepresented Marshall's "one-shot stop data" as a valid statistical sampling of "actual street results". Valid statistical samplings always report a plus or minus percentage of sampling error, which is based on consideration and evaluation of all factors that affect statistical certainty. This vital statistical process allows researchers to determine how meaningful or meaningless the findings are. Fackler's article, Too Good to be True, discusses, among other things, the significance of determining statistical certainty.

Marshall & Sanow have never performed a statistical certainty analysis of Marshall's one-shot stop data. They present raw "data," which is totally meaningless in context even if it was honestly collected and examined as claimed. Marshall's sampling methodology and the manner in which his data is presented are no more accurate or credible than any other nonscientific (for entertainment only) survey, and this generously assumes that Marshall is being completely honest.

Anyone who still believes the Marshall "findings" to be true should submit one of Marshall's "one-shot stop" books or articles to a professional statistics organization that has absolutely no interest in ballistics or the outcome, like http://www.westat.com. An unbiased organization such this is fully qualified to analyze and critique the validity of Marshall's methodology and "findings".

Marshall, Sanow, Massad Ayoob and other "one-shot stop" advocates either ignorantly or intentionally mischaracterize and attempt to discredit the professional wound ballistics community as lab coat wearing nerds who never step foot outside the confines of a controlled laboratory setting. These uninformed or dishonest gunwriters attempt to portray wound ballistics professionals as incompetent dunces who are unwilling to consider "real world shooting results," lest the "real world laboratory of the street" contradict cherished "laboratory gelatin results" and "laboratory theories." One need only peruse a few issues of the IWBA journal, Wound Ballistics Review, to learn otherwise. Many of the articles are written by law enforcement officers or other professionals who work closely with law enforcement agencies.

Marshall & Sanow are preparing to publish a third book, Street Stoppers II. Until recently, we had planned to obtain a copy and publish a book review. But unless Street Stoppers II contains startling new information, we're moving on.
But before we close the book on Marshall & Sanow -- hopefully for good -- we'd like to express our appreciation to IWBA and the authors below, who've kindly granted us permission to re-print the following articles.

Maarten van Maanen's article, Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time, was the subject of Calibre Press' Street Survival Newsline (No. 419, dated 11/16/99), a law enforcement newsletter that's distributed to thousands of law enforcement officers worldwide. Calibre Press is a major law enforcement training organization. They produce and present the highly acclaimed Street Survival Seminar as well as publish the award winning books Street Survival, The Tactical Edge and Tactics for Criminal Patrol. The staff of Calibre Press reviewed van Maanen's article and found van Maanen's evidence of fraud and deceit so convincing as to warrant alerting the law enforcement community to his findings. If there's any one organization that has its finger on the pulse of what's going on in the "real world laboratory of the streets," it's the folks at Calibre Press.

(In 1993, Calibre Press permanently removed Marshall & Sanow's first book, Handgun Stopping Power, from their catalog after law enforcement members with the International Wound Ballistics Association presented them with compelling evidence that the book was teeming with falsehoods. Since then, Calibre Press has refused to carry Marshall & Sanow's books.)

Note: The founders of Calibre Press, Charles Remsberg and Dennis Anderson, recently retired and sold the business to another company. Mr. Remsberg personally made the decision to reject the Marshall/Sanow books because he did not want to offer flawed information to law enforcement officers. We applaud Mr. Remsberg's integrity and high regard for officer safety. It is unknown if the new owners of Calibre Press are aware of the problems with Marshall/Sanow, but current editions of the Calibre Press catalog contain the latest Marshall/Sanow book.

Reference Articles
Fackler, Martin L., MD.: "Book Review: Street Stoppers: The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results." Wound Ballistics Review, 3(1); 26-31: 1997.

MacPherson, Duncan: "Sanow Strikes (Out) Again." Wound Ballistics Review, 3(1): 32-35; 1997.

van Maanen, Maarten: "Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow 'Data Base': An Evaluation Over Time." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 9-13: Fall, 1999.

Fackler, Martin L., MD.: "Undeniable Evidence." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 14-15: Fall, 1999.

MacPherson, Duncan: "The Marshall & Sanow 'Data' - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 16-21: Fall, 1999.
Gabriel Suarez

Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

Suarez International USA Headquarters”

Please notice that honest reviewers can cite references by REAL EXPERTS, and oddly enough they all know that the Marshall-Sanow junk is either evidence of incompetence or intentional misrepresentation.

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?19329-Marshall-and-Sanow

[Der Gebirgsjager]

There is little point in continuing the discussion. You are missing the point entirely. M & S only accumulated and reported incidents that actually happened. They never sought to find the Holy Grail of loads, merely reporting what worked how often in the information they were able to gather. You can't statistically analyze random incidents-- there may or may not be repeatability. Each incident was a unique incident. Sometimes a certain load repeated results, other times it did not. Interesting that Ayoob is also excoriated, and it is certainly ungentlemanly to cast aspersions on Marshall's honesty. I feel quite sure that his intent was not to deceive the whole shooting world when he and Sanow did something that hadn't been done before. This is the age old so-called scientific and scholastic snobbery vs. real world. These three individuals have been on the street, and likely none of the critics have. You can shoot jello in a lab all day long and get repeatable results, but on the street where a bullet is put to the test against heavy clothing, bone, and adrenaline the results are not precise, and their point was only that your chances are better with some than others. Fini.

DG

[cainttype]

The irony continues…
You would disparage true experts, world-renowned trauma surgeons, some that devoted much of their professional career freely to help improve the science behind wound trauma in a SUCCESSFUL effort to impart a better understanding for future generations. The effective trauma surgeon today that might be elbow-deep in blood in an Emergency Room, or field hospital, has learned and benefitted from the knowledge and expertise these exemplary men passed down to them.
You would prefer to refer to them as “lab rats” and “jello shooters” when the truth is some of these trauma surgeons spent years in the field searching for better answers and saved more lives than Marshall OR Sanow ever saw wounds…. It’s insane.

You would compare true giants in their field that often donated their expertise to the military, LEO community, and general public by making the advances needed to push the sciences further to desk-jockeys that at best appeared to be shills for ammo companies trying to promote cheaper, light-weight projectiles for their own self-profits.

The truth is out there, but it wasn’t written by Marshall and Sanow.
I’ll give them the benefit of doubt and accept that they weren’t/aren’t intentionally lying…. Their “work” was simply incompetent.

[Cast10]

I, too, once studied Handgun Stopping Power and read Marshall/Sanow....Having a 45ACP/357Mag around was standard medicine, so it seemed. Didn’t keep me from shooting 44Mag, 9mm, 380.

As stated, advancements in bullet design seemed to change the way we thought about handgun stopping power. The 380/9mm crowd was reborn and they are enjoying sales, no doubt. Me, I opted for a 10mm some years back, mainly for stopping power on oinkers and the like!

Stopping power; Don’t forget, as stated, Good target acquisition, Practice Practice Practice, Know where to hit and HIT where you AIM. Oh, another thought to keep in mind, if you don’t stop the perp, he keeps attacking. If you were to shoot center mass and they don’t go down with a solid hit, aim for the A-Frame! Body Armour!

[44MAG#1]

I will just sit back and watch with amusement.

[Bigslug]

Lab vs. Field. . .Field vs. Lab. . .

The positive thing about the current FBI lab protocols is that they grew out of studying what worked or didn't in the field, and have been driving bullet design based on the charateristics of what was successful. Really, it ain't a bad system of priorities, given the physics we're stuck working with:

1. Shot placement above all else. This is going to favor the lighter kicking rounds. Some people shoot well with a boomer, but nobody shoots worse with something smaller.

2. Sufficient penetration to hit the important stuff. As casters, we probably all know that this is easy to achive with adequate mass for the diameter and we probably all know it doesn't necessarily take a massive powder charge to attain.

3. All the diameter you can get so long as you don't sacrifice #1 and #2. Under that guideline, we can probably all agree that a heavy adn hot hollowpoint .45 Colt that opens to about an inch and penetrates 20 inches of gel would have "more of the good stuff" than a 147 grain 9mm duty round, but here is where we have to get objective and ask "What is this REALLY gaining us?"

Since we've started designing bullets to perform within those guidelines, it's become damned hard to measure any qualitiative difference in performance - in gel or live targets - between two rounds that penetrated about the same, only differ in weight by a few tiny fractions of an ounce, and in diameter by one to three tenths of an inch.

Whether you agree with the 9mm advocates or not, this is what is driving their sales right now: "It makes the same hole, it's easier to put the hole where I want it, I can make more holes, and in a shorter period of time before I have to reach for more hole-punches, and - hey accounting department! - it costs less to buy and doesn't wear the guns out as fast. Sign me up!"

The act of taking down critters with a more massively-constructed circulatory system might benefit from the bigger thump, but within the confines of what's portable and useable in a service firearm for use on bipedal threats, .35" seems to be where the optimum balance lies.

[Golfswithwolves]

In a previous career many years ago I had the opportunity to participate in a fairly large number of shooting investigations. Most involved long guns, but there were a good selection of deaths caused by one individual shooting another with various handguns of multiple calibers. Of course all of these calibers caused deaths, however almost all these fatalities were due to two or more gunshots to the deceased person (although my memory is subject to forgetting things). The only person I recall who died due to a single bullet was shot with a lead ball from a .36 Navy cap and ball black powder revolver.

[downzero]

With handguns often accounting for 8K-12K+ non-suicide deaths (homicides, self-defense, and accidental) and another 60-100K+ non-fatal injuries every year, I’d not put much value in yet another “Real World Study” by an amateur citing only 1700+ cases over a 10+ year time frame.

If randomly selected, 1700 cases is plenty to extrapolate the statistics from a million observations. That's what statistics is all about.

[downzero]

Statistics can be manipulated to prove what the compiler of those statistics wants to prove. One can gather statistics to generate Confirmation Bias.

Which is why they should publish their methodology and explain why these biases have been controlled for. Statistical methods are just as important as the computations themselves. It doesn't mean statistics are worthless.

[44MAG#1]

Which is why they should publish their methodology and explain why these biases have been controlled for. Statistical methods are just as important as the computations themselves. It doesn't mean statistics are worthless.

I DID NOT say they are worthless. They are to be questioned and have great wonderment about. It has LONG BEEN known that statistics can be used to sway people into believing a lot of hooey. "THEY" said it I believe it and that is it is the mind set many have. We just DONT KNOW how the statistic were gathered, cultivated and what was the agenda of those presenting them is. Then there is the question of, do they have value, and if someone says they do. who is saying they do? Someone that has an agenda themselves?
I carry what I like. Most of the time it is a 45 Auto, lesser time it is a 40 S&W and a M69 Smith. My agenda is I like them regardless of the statistics. My agenda is based on my LIKE. Even I have an agenda.

BTW, I shot a 3 inch Kimber 1911 45n Auto and a Glock M21 this morning. It was fulfilling using cast bullets.

[downzero]

I DID NOT say they are worthless. They are to be questioned and have great wonderment about. It has LONG BEEN known that statistics can be used to sway people into believing a lot of hooey. "THEY" said it I believe it and that is it is the mind set many have. We just DONT KNOW how the statistic were gathered, cultivated and what was the agenda of those presenting them is. Then there is the question of, do they have value, and if someone says they do. who is saying they do? Someone that has an agenda themselves?
I carry what I like. Most of the time it is a 45 Auto, lesser time it is a 40 S&W and a M69 Smith. My agenda is I like them regardless of the statistics. My agenda is based on my LIKE. Even I have an agenda.

BTW, I shot a 3 inch Kimber 1911 45n Auto and a Glock M21 this morning. It was fulfilling using cast bullets.

Those sorts of statements are common responses to statistical evidence (no matter what the context). They are "common knowledge" among the ignorant who don't have a fully understanding of inferential statistics and their explanatory power. Statistics have no agenda. The samples from which they are based may have bias, but statistical tests themselves have no interest or bias. All of the common statistical tests, which have been in use for 120+ years to analyze complex data sets, have rigorous proofs. Nowadays, information is so readily available, that finding these rigorous proofs don't require you to go to a college library and look for a textbook--they're on the wikipedia page! 30 years ago such information would be difficult to find, but in the 21st Century, the proof is at your fingertips. All you need is a little understanding of mathematical notation and calculus and you can check their work yourself.

If you choose to make decisions based on your own emotions rather than the data, I'm not one to criticize them. But if your refutation of the data is that your anecdotes know better than statistics, I'm sorry to tell you that you've lost the debate before it began. Anecdotes are not evidence, and statistics are how we reveal the truth from large data sets.

[44MAG#1]

"Those sorts of statements are common responses to statistical evidence (no matter what the context). They are "common knowledge" among the ignorant who don't have a fully understanding of inferential statistics and their explanatory power."
Okay, so I am ignorant. I have know that for most of my nearly 69 years.
"Statistics have no agenda. The samples from which they are based may have bias, but statistical tests themselves have no interest or bias. All of the common statistical tests, which have been in use for 120+ years to analyze complex data sets, have rigorous proofs."
The statistic themselves have no feelings or bias of themselves. I question the way the way they are used by the agenda driven.
"Nowadays, information is so readily available, that finding these rigorous proofs don't require you to go to a college library and look for a textbook--they're on the wikipedia page!"
Just because it is "readily available" doesn't mean it is any good though.

"30 years ago such information would be difficult to find, but in the 21st Century, the proof is at your fingertips. All you need is a little understanding of mathematical notation and calculus and you can check their work yourself."

That is true, but, the slicksters know many, if not most, isn't going to take the time to decipher, decode, debunk and test what is said. They use that to their advantage. Just like the politicians pushing a "bill".

"If you choose to make decisions based on your own emotions rather than the data, I'm not one to criticize them. But if your refutation of the data is that your anecdotes know better than statistics, I'm sorry to tell you that you've lost the debate before it began."
I had no "debate" I said originally people are going to believe what they want to believe based on "emotion" or "statictics" period. And that hese threads do very little if anything to change that. I have been on other forums where this very subject has been hashed, rehashed, argued, debated, toiled over and cussed over and it is always the same.
"Anecdotes are not evidence, and statistics are how we reveal the truth from large data sets. "

Anecdotes is what has given the fuel to gather statistics by the agenda fueled. So don't sell anecdotes short. They lit the fire under the the "Intellegent" of which I am not one.

[farmbif]

I never been in a gunfight,
here's a couple old videos on subject for information/entertainment pleasure. are they relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPvzMbAEutw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERs7VyRMETg

[Kosh75287]

In .45 ACP, 6.8 - 7.5/Unique/215 gr. SAECO #58 SWC. More powerful loads can be fired from a defensive sidearm, but I question the ability of ANY of them to deliver better fight-stopping effect.

[Bigslug]

In a previous career many years ago I had the opportunity to participate in a fairly large number of shooting investigations. . . The only person I recall who died due to a single bullet was shot with a lead ball from a .36 Navy cap and ball black powder revolver.

Hmmm. So Bill Hickok was carrying an effective handgun. Who knew?:mrgreen:

[charlie b]

Yep, effective shot placement.

[1hole]

Movies often show impressive stopping/knock down power that isn't true. Statistics aside, antidotes can be quite revealing in ways numbers can't.

I am an 81 year old lover of John Browning's masterpiece, the 1911 in .45 ACP with 200 gr SWC, largely because of my faith in it to stop fights.

In some 35 years of carrying it I've only fired one round at a living target, a 45 pound feral dog pestering my hunting camp back in 1992. From about 25 feet, the bullet path would have been from high over the neck to about the gonads; that would surely knock an animal of that modest size down, right? Wrong. He went away at a very high speed - and yelping loudly at every step - but he was NOT knocked down; that forever destroyed my faith in knock-down power and movies. (Of course a spine hit would have dropped him in his tracks but I obviously missed that.)

I still carry my 1911 because I trust it MUCH more than any 9mm (after all, that puny thing is only a .38 Special +PP with light for caliber bullets) but I have a more realistic outlook on any lauded "stopping power" than I used to have; I'm now certain that nothing will "knockdown" a determined human.

No one should threaten me or mine, our lives matter. If I'm ever forced to pull a trigger socially won't be a Politically Correct event, when the first shot is fired it will be a fight to the death of me or him. Then, IF my target of the moment goes down and circumstances permit, I plan to continue inserting leaky places in him until my magazine is empty. Even then, if he's still yelling and/or strongly wiggling, I intend to swap magazines and repeat until he stops. Doing otherwise would be a fool's errand and whatever other defects I may have, I'm no fool.

Bottom line, I no longer have any delusions about one hit "stopping" power. I will not, "Shoot once and than wait to see what happens". If I ever get into a gun fight, and no matter what happens to me, I intend that my target will end up looking like he was attacked by a rabid Singer sewing machine swinging a .45 caliber needle.

[dverna]

Over the years, I have rationalized why I carry a certain caliber and bullet. It may "wrong" but the only consistent measure of effectiveness I use is "jello" performance. "Jello" is not affected by adrenaline or drugs or attitude...it just "is" what it is.

I have used the information here to make my selections:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#updates

Most of us have seen deer (a wee bit smaller than most Bad Guys) shot with all sorts of calibers. Some seem to have been hit in about the same place with very similar bullets and one will drop immediately and another will not. Most are shot with bullets with a lot more oomph than a pistol bullet.

If we did a study on deer I wonder what we would conclude. I bet there would be a number of folks clinging to softer alloy cast bullets @ 1800 fps as the best and others insisting the modern jacketed bullet at 2500 fps was best. In the end our deer would be dead and we would "know" we were right. There have been a lot more deer killed than Bad Guys and we still debate "effectiveness".

I was not aware of the statistical concerns of the M&S study until reading this thread. I have a basic understanding of statistics and anyone who believes numbers lie should be ignored as they are ignorant. What can be manipulated is the raw data. For example, we do that when we post "wallet" groups. People will ignore "outliers" and that is manipulation.

It is questionable to dismiss statistical data because it does not "fit" our field observations....unless we understand why it does not fit. Forcing a conclusion is bad science. For example, if "you do your part" and shoot a 1 MOA group with your cast .30/30 load and the next groups is 3 MOA....you do not have a 1 MOA load. It is likely that "doing your part" was mostly luck.

It seems unwise to dismiss everything in the M&S study, but it is just as unwise to believe it cannot be questioned and is the inspired word of the Ballistic Gods. Using derogatory labels like "lab rats" does not win an argument. After all, most of us are "Deplorables" and we are not as stupid as the elites think we are.

[Burnt Fingers]

Movies often show impressive stopping/knock down power that isn't true. Statistics aside, antidotes can be quite revealing in ways numbers can't.

I am an 81 year old lover of John Browning's masterpiece, the 1911 in .45 ACP with 200 gr SWC, largely because of my faith in it to stop fights.

In some 35 years of carrying it I've only fired one round at a living target, a 45 pound feral dog pestering my hunting camp back in 1992. From about 25 feet, the bullet path would have been from high over the neck to about the gonads; that would surely knock an animal of that modest size down, right? Wrong. He went away at a very high speed - and yelping loudly at every step - but he was NOT knocked down; that forever destroyed my faith in knock-down power and movies. (Of course a spine hit would have dropped him in his tracks but I obviously missed that.)

I still carry my 1911 because I trust it MUCH more than any 9mm (after all, that puny thing is only a .38 Special +PP with light for caliber bullets) but I have a more realistic outlook on any lauded "stopping power" than I used to have; I'm now certain that nothing will "knockdown" a determined human.

No one should threaten me or mine, our lives matter. If I'm ever forced to pull a trigger socially won't be a Politically Correct event, when the first shot is fired it will be a fight to the death of me or him. Then, IF my target of the moment goes down and circumstances permit, I plan to continue inserting leaky places in him until my magazine is empty. Even then, if he's still yelling and/or strongly wiggling, I intend to swap magazines and repeat until he stops. Doing otherwise would be a fool's errand and whatever other defects I may have, I'm no fool.

Bottom line, I no longer have any delusions about one hit "stopping" power. I will not, "Shoot once and than wait to see what happens". If I ever get into a gun fight, and no matter what happens to me, I intend that my target will end up looking like he was attacked by a rabid Singer sewing machine swinging a .45 caliber needle.

It's simple physics. In order for a pistol bullet to "knock someone down" it's going to have to have the same effect on the shooter. Nothing is free.

[44MAG#1]

Does "manipulated" raw data influence the resultant statistics? Or does "manipulated" raw data provide as accurate statistics as raw data does that hasn't been "manipulated"?
Or another way of asking is: does "manipulated" raw data and non-"manipulated" raw data result in the exact same statistics, hence give the exact same statistical results?

[Der Gebirgsjager]

I wonder if anyone here, other than myself, has actually read the books. ? .

DG

[downzero]

Does "manipulated" raw data influence the resultant statistics? Or does "manipulated" raw data provide as accurate statistics as raw data does that hasn't been "manipulated"?
Or another way of asking is: does "manipulated" raw data and non-"manipulated" raw data result in the exact same statistics, hence give the exact same statistical results?

The answer to your question is no. The statistic is the truth about the sample it studies. The bias is not introduced by the application of a statistical test, the bias, if in the data, is still there when the test is performed.

Statistical tests have no bias or motivation. The resulting statistic may not prove anything if the sample has some improper influence, however.

[RJM52]

I wonder if anyone here, other than myself, has actually read the books. ? .

DG

Me...own every one of the editions and my last one was personally autographed by Mr. Marshall at the SIG Academy where he was part of a ballistics seminar they put in 1997.... Do I agree with everything the wrote...no...but I spent close to 30 years in the business and observed in many cases exactly what their data reported so I don't disagree with them either.

Another plus with M&S is their definition of a "stop". A Stop didn't always result in a dead body. The "professionals" only look at dead bodies and how the bullet killed the person on the table. The problem being you could ask them the question "how did this person react when hit" and he would have no clue. They rarely ever had any interaction with the LEO who shot the person.

Most "professionals" work out of the local or state Medical Examiners Office. As such they deal with the dead. Ask them if they have ever interviewed a LEO who shot someone who died...many haven't. Ask if they ever interviewed a LEO who shot someone who didn't die..you probably won't find any.

Last month in Chicago 105 people were shot and killed...517 shot and wounded. If that ratio is just "average" then 5 times as many people get shot and the MEs Office never saw them...and we have no clue what happened when they got hit, what they got hit with...nothing...and neither do they....and that would be a much better data base as we would know exactly what happened to them when they got hit...

My bottom line is "carry a reliable gun that you can hit with".

Bob

[35remington]

One of the most glaring problems with the M and S data was that they excluded all instances where the participant was shot more than once.

It is pretty easy to understand that was one of several glaring instances of bad data collection. One of the most obvious questions to ask is how often did the caliber/load in question not work with one shot?

Ellefritz attempted to address this with his sample collection. He came up with the sampling impression that handguns fail to stop fairly often and are not nearly as effective as M and S imply.

Not even close, actually.

[Outpost75]

The problem I see with the M-S data is that in the great majority of OIS the threat is shot multiple times because training doctrine is not to shoot once and watch, but to continue firing until the threat is neutralized. I've yet to see anyone with a face full of six or more .22 LR who had much fight left in them.... let alone 9mm or .38 Special of any n load .

[dverna]

The problem I see with the M-S data is that in the great majority of OIS the threat is shot multiple times because training doctrine is not to shoot once and watch, but to continue firing until the threat is neutralized. I've yet to see anyone with a face full of six or more .22 LR who had much fight left in them.... let alone 9mm or .38 Special of any n load .

Exactly....we are trained to fire a minimum of two shots....and to keep firing until the threat is neutralized.

[RJM52]

"One of the most glaring problems with the M and S data was that they excluded all instances where the participant was shot more than once."

A) That was not the focus of their research

B) STREET STOPPERS....Chapter 24....Page 301....Effects of Multiple Bullet Impacts

[cainttype]

If this is true, the M&S “studies” have little-to-no credibility… At a minimum, you should use sources that actually exist if you’re going to name them as references to prove a point.

An excerpt from;
https://www.pistolsmith.com/threads/street-stoppers-fackler.1420/


Marshall - Sanow Can't Beat the Long Odds -- Wound Wizards' Tally Too Good To Be True (Soldier of Fortune Jan 94, pp. 64-65) presents the facts in a way that allows the interested layman to comprehend why the impossible regularity of the Marshall - Sanow data has caused professional statisticians, unanimously, to declare it bogus -- or "too good to be true." More recently, Duncan MacPherson has written, "it is almost impossible for a layman with no knowledge of statistics to avoid the 'too good to be true' trap in manufacturing or doctoring data," and "Any claim that WTI (Wound Trauma Incapacitation) can be assessed within a few percent based on combat shooting data is based on ignorance, or fraud, or both."2 "Statistician Dan Watters from the University of South Carolina" is mentioned on page 330 of "Street Stoppers." It appears that Marshall and Sanow are implying that there exists a professional statistician who doesn't burst out laughing when presented with their "data." I was especially interested in this Watters because all of the professional statisticians, who I know have seen the Marshall - Sanow "data," were in clear and unequivocal agreement that the "one-shot stop statistics" were so flagrantly bogus that nobody competent in statistics could believe them to be genuine. I tried to reach Watters: the University of South Carolina directory does not have any such person listed -- and the Department of Statistics there denies that any such person works for them, or has in the past. I remain eager to contact any professional statistician who thinks he or she can support the Marshall - Sanow "data." Further evidence regarding these authors' credibility (or lack thereof) is contained in the details reviews of "Handgun Stopping Power."

[dverna]

If this is true, the M&S “studies” have little-to-no credibility… At a minimum, you should use sources that actually exist if you’re going to name them as references to prove a point.

An excerpt from;
https://www.pistolsmith.com/threads/street-stoppers-fackler.1420/


I tried to reach Watters: the University of South Carolina directory does not have any such person listed -- and the Department of Statistics there denies that any such person works for them, or has in the past.

Well...that is pretty damning if it is true. I will view M&S as I do many of the Covid "experts", unless someone knows Mr. MacPherson is full of crap...or that Dan Watters worked for the University of South Carolina and reviewed the data.

Thank you cainttype for educating us (or at least me) on this subject.

[1hole]

Raw data doesn't lie, it just stands there.

The statistical lying comes from so-called expert interpretations and shady presentations of their carefully selected and organized numbers to project their chosen messages. So, sadly, a LOT of politically oriented statisticians, plus our news media and many others, do lie to us - A LOT. And their "expert" deception is as much by the data they hide from us as from anything they say. My basic rule about political liberals is to watch their lips; if those lips are moving they're lying again! Thus, after decades of political cherry picked info and near hysterical "news" broadcasts designed to keep gullible people's bowels in an up-roar I've quit listening.

With age comes experience; I'm 81. So far I've survived the supposed dire emergencies of DDT, ozone holes, radon, chemicals like H2O in my food, acid rain, agent Orange, billions of "uncontrolled" guns in the hands of honest common folk, Alar on apples, both global freezing AND frying (both coming from the same people), drowning of polar bears and smelts and chiggers, sinking islands, lead based paint, auto exhausts, asbestos, El Ninos, hurricanes, the annual American virus panics (and now sharing the first truly great daddy of them all).

I've heard so much "educated liberal" gloom and doom for so long it's getting hard for me to stay awake in anticipation of their next round of their Chicken Little predictions that if we plebs don't immediately follow their lying paths to save the world from human and tadpole annihilation we're all gonna die next year; or by the end of 2023 at the latest. (If you don't believe me just ask that 15 year old spoiled brat Australian girl our fake "news" media loves so much, I'm sure she'll tell you the lib's straight skinny about the coming end of her broiled world.)

Enough.

Forgive me for meandering so much. A (Christian) friend died from COPD yesterday evening and soggy days like this give me too much time to sit and brood about today, never mind two years from now.

[44MAG#1]

All I know is, I got up this morning after sleeping longer than I wanted, I put my jeans, shirt and shoes on and stuck my Glock M21 Gen4 45 Auto in my holster. I later went to Wal Mart and then back home. Even though I forgot the item my wife specifically wanted, which is never good to do.
It is loaded with a 230 grain +/- cast FP with a .330" meplat cast from Lyman #2 alloy, backed by a nice safe load of Alliant Bullseye.
I feel that may be enough for defense.
While at home I carry quite often a Glock M27 Gen4 40 S&W and it is loaded with either a 200 grain Hornady XTP or a 200 grain FP cast that trundles both along slightly over 900fps chronoed.
I feel after what Phil Shoemaker accomplished I am good to go with either.
I Think.

[AZ Pete]

my only experience with "stopping power" involves large game (deer, elk, bison and Oryx) and it makes a world of difference where the target is hit if you want an immediate stop. In my experience the only reliable "dead right there" is a hit to the central nervous system. Caliber is secondary in my opinion.

[35remington]

The focus of M and S research should have been to analyze when something worked and when it did not without excluding very relevant information. What they gathered and presented gave a not at all believable account of “one shot stops.” The percentages they gave for many ammunition types and calibers could not even pass a “smell test.”

A reasonably experienced deer hunter could have come up with more relevant information on the topic. Apologies for sounding so scathing, but their information fails any test of statistical validity.

[BunkTheory]

Well heres the thingy on this, stopping power is a mythical figment we try to chase in hopes of perfection.

Whats better, a 380 acp to the back of the head or a 44 magnum 240 xtp to the stomach? You no longer have to worry about the mugger knifing your for your money. One is most likely dead, the other is mostlike dead, or wishing they was dead.

[pettypace]

This might take several posts, so bear with me...

The image below shows 10,000 computer simulated "shots" at a more or less standard silhouette target. The program that did the "shooting" picks a random sample from a "normal" distribution with a standard deviation assigned by the user. The target "frame" is the 8 foot square recommended by Fairbairn and Sykes for training raw recruits for the Shanghai Municipal Police.

287225

For this target I set the SD to 10" to get an approximately 50% hit ratio. I wanted 50% because I've read that the average hit ratio in officer involved shootings seldom exceeds 50% and is often much lower. My guess is that the average armed citizen in a self defense scenario is not likely to do much better.

At the top of the target you can see the input data: The standard deviation is set to 10. Don't worry about "Dd=0". And the number of shots is set to 10,000. The next line shows the results: About 50% of the shots hit the target, and of those, 561 shots were considered "vital" hits.

I'll get to the vital hits in the next post.

[pettypace]

This next target shows the same level of accuracy (standard deviation = 10") but with only 5 shots fired. So, maybe some poor guy in a self defense scenario ran his snubby dry and now wishes he had actually bothered to carry extra ammo.

287226

But with only 5 shots on the paper, we can see the 2" by 20" vertical cylinder that Duncan MacPherson used in his book Bullet Penetration to model the "vital wound volume" of the human target. The idea is that a shot that penetrates deep enough and hits that cylinder is much more likely to produce a "vital" wound. And a "vital" wound is more likely to incapacitate a bad guy quicker than a non-vital wound.

The problem is that with a level of accuracy that produces only a 50% hit ratio, vital hits are few and far between. Going back to the 10,000 shot target, we can see that only about 5-6% of the shots fired result in "vital" hits.

Of course, all this is just mathematical modelling. But the less than 50% hit ratio for OIS is real enough. And certainly the 2" by 20" vertical cylinder contains much of the "vitals" of the human anatomy.

This brings to mind two questions: First, given adequate penetration, does the vital wound cylinder sort of even out the "stopping power" differences among the various cartridges? And second, is "stopping power" more important for non-vital wounds than for vital wounds?

(Here's a link to the simulation for anyone interested: https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/FS.php?Sd=10&Dd=0&N=17)

[44MAG#1]

I will say this, you are determined.

[pettypace]

I will say this, you are determined.

Thanks!

[44MAG#1]

Thanks!

I just don't know what you are determined about.

[BunkTheory]

This next target shows the same level of accuracy (standard deviation = 10") but with only 5 shots fired. So, maybe some poor guy in a self defense scenario ran his snubby dry and now wishes he had actually bothered to carry extra ammo.

287226

But with only 5 shots on the paper, we can see the 2" by 20" vertical cylinder that Duncan MacPherson used in his book Bullet Penetration to model the "vital wound volume" of the human target. The idea is that a shot that penetrates deep enough and hits that cylinder is much more likely to produce a "vital" wound. And a "vital" wound is more likely to incapacitate a bad guy quicker than a non-vital wound.

The problem is that with a level of accuracy that produces only a 50% hit ratio, vital hits are few and far between. Going back to the 10,000 shot target, we can see that only about 5-6% of the shots fired result in "vital" hits.

Of course, all this is just mathematical modelling. But the less than 50% hit ratio for OIS is real enough. And certainly the 2" by 20" vertical cylinder contains much of the "vitals" of the human anatomy.

This brings to mind two questions: First, given adequate penetration, does the vital wound cylinder sort of even out the "stopping power" differences among the various cartridges? And second, is "stopping power" more important for non-vital wounds than for vital wounds?

(Here's a link to the simulation for anyone interested: https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/FS.php?Sd=10&Dd=0&N=17)



The WOUND CYLINDER in that diagram/theory represents the SPINAL CORD and SPINE of the average human being.

The problem is, people have had broken backs who were able to run to the hospital on their own feet.

People on drugs well, can gain super human powers and shrug off any pain from tasers, shotguns, and handguns UNTIL the brain or spinal cord or pelvic bone gets shattered.

Remember the FBI shootout that failed due to inadequate bullet penetration in Miami? Although they used the latest "scientifically validated bullets" Someone armed with a Webley revolver using WW2 200 grain lead, or 176 grain FMJ 38 SW loadings would have shot through that suspect and NOT had the bullet lodge in the arm.

[pettypace]

I just don't know what you are determined about.

All will be revealed at the proper time.

[44MAG#1]

All will be revealed at the proper time.

I bet I know what it is. A "scientific" way of saying what some of us have known for quite some time.

[Buck Shot]

I haven't read the thread, but for whatever it's worth, about 30 yrs ago I wrote a story about a policeman who'd shot a bad guy something like 7 times (I forget the exact number) with a 9x19mm before he stopped, using good HP ammo. (The bad guy was trying to shoot the policeman with a handgun of his own, snapping the trigger over and over again, but thankfully, apparently no one had ever taught him how to chamber a round.)

To get more in-depth on the story, I also talked to the coroner there (Miami/Dade County) about why the BG wasn't stopped sooner.

The coroner told me that there are only two ways to stop someone immediately with a handgun:
A. Hit him in the brain/spine/CNS; and/or
B. Cause trauma sufficient to immediately drop the blood pressure to the brain, because without enough blood pressure to the brain, the bad guy loses consciousness. Generally, that means the bullet hitting the heart, another major organ, or some major blood vessel.

As he explained it, "Getting shot doesn't hurt, usually, because there are no nerves that feel pain inside your body. So getting shot probably feels about like getting punched."

I asked him about hydraulic shock, and the way that CF rifles seem to kill deer as if they were hit by lightning, but if I recall right, he said hydraulic shock generally wasn't a factor with handguns; whatever the case, we got off the subject of hydraulic shock quickly. (I think the policeman used "Hydra-Shok" ammunition, which may have been how to topic came up.)

As for the FBI Miami shootout, that happened just 3 blocks from where my aunt (who was nearly blind) lived in Kendall. She used to walk right by where it happened all the time...and my cousin went to high school with one of the bad guys (Matix, I think). They showed me the site where it happened behind the Publix shopping center...I was surprised there was no memorial or anything (but this was back in the early 1990s, maybe there is one by now)...

[wv109323]

Sometime back I followed a thread written by an assistant to the Georgian forensic pathologist. They did like 5 autopsies a day. Not all were gun shot victims. He worked there like 15 years.
His opinion was - It is not what you start with,it is where the bullet ends up. His opinion was that too many variables to determine "best stopping power". Where one bullet would be ideal it may not be ideal if it had to penetrate bone. The distance to vital organs may differ depending on the position of the victim to the shooter.
His choice of defensive firearm was a .40 S&W with hp bullets.

[44MAG#1]

Sometime back I followed a thread written by an assistant to the Georgian forensic pathologist. They did like 5 autopsies a day. Not all were gun shot victims. He worked there like 15 years.
His opinion was - It is not what you start with,it is where the bullet ends up. His opinion was that too many variables to determine "best stopping power". Where one bullet would be ideal it may not be ideal if it had to penetrate bone. The distance to vital organs may differ depending on the position of the victim to the shooter.
His choice of defensive firearm was a .40 S&W with hp bullets.

That is the reason when I sometimes carry a 40 S&W Glock M27 it is loaded with a 200 grain XTP Hornady or a 200 grain hard cast FP at 900 to 930 FPS from that firearm.

[cainttype]

The desired effect in all of these comparisons is to end a dangerous encounter requiring deadly force immediately. If “immediately” isn’t accomplished “As quickly as possible” is a secondary goal.

In agreeing with the FBI assessment, a little clarification might be in order.
Penetration is of utmost importance because… 1)Reaching the vitals is critical, but reaching the SPINE results in instantaneous incapacitation….Two holes bleed out faster than one…Knowing that heavy clothing and/or heavy bone (arms, for instance) will reduce penetration is something that needs to be considered. The FBI trials after “The Shootout in Miami” fiasco kept that front and center during their research.
2)Permanent wound channel… Two holes bleed out faster than one (see above)… Larger diameter bleeds out faster than small… Sometimes lost in the discussion, a smaller bullet that “almost” clips the spine could be a larger diameter that DID clip the spine (see (1) above).
None of the above means anything if you miss.

My conclusion/opinion… The largest diameter PERMANENT wound channel that reliably penetrates from any angle through the vitals AND spinal area is a VERY good choice, if you can deliver the bullet where you need it.

“Stopping Power” and how to define it?…. In the hunting field or in self-defense those criteria cover it pretty well for me.

[Burnt Fingers]

Sometime back I followed a thread written by an assistant to the Georgian forensic pathologist. They did like 5 autopsies a day. Not all were gun shot victims. He worked there like 15 years.
His opinion was - It is not what you start with,it is where the bullet ends up. His opinion was that too many variables to determine "best stopping power". Where one bullet would be ideal it may not be ideal if it had to penetrate bone. The distance to vital organs may differ depending on the position of the victim to the shooter.
His choice of defensive firearm was a .40 S&W with hp bullets.

The problem there is that they only see the ones that die. Take Chicago as an example. On a weekend they might have 50 people shot but only 6-7 deaths.

One has to account for the people that didn't die too. That runs into a problem. The surgeon is going to patch them up and really not pay attention to much else. Some of the dindonuffins don't even need surgery.

[Murphy]

1 shot stopping power in a handgun is an endless debate and will remain so until the end of time. And that's all I have to say about that. :)

Murphy

[Buck Shot]

1 shot stopping power in a handgun is an endless debate and will remain so until the end of time. And that's all I have to say about that. :)

Murphy

+1

All I know is that the stopping power of any handgun is generally gonna be a small fraction of that of any long gun!

[Michael J. Spangler]

I wrote a ton here but too many distractions with the kids so it’s all jumbled.

Shot placement is king as long as we use a cartridge that meets the known penetration standards.
Get rid of the variable of humans and treat them as animals. If someone had the ability to be a drugged up adrenaline filled animal then we have to act as if they will be this way every time.
So only a CNS hit will be a one shot stopper.

Lucky Gunner shows plenty of modern ammo that meets this criteria given proper shot placement.
I don’t think modern 357 will do any better than modern 38 special.

With the proper placement they will both penetrate to result in a CNS hit.

Expanding bullets or larger diameter bullets that cut wider holes and drain the blood faster are all icing on the cake.

[44MAG#1]

Is anything NEW being said? I just wish something NEW could be introduced in the "STOPPING POWER" topics.
It sure would make good reading though.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Is anything NEW being said? I just wish something NEW could be introduced in the "STOPPING POWER" topics.
It sure would make good reading though.


Maybe that’s the point? Nothing is new. The body is still the same. The bullets are more or less the same, possibly more effective. I don’t think we will see anything new until one or the other changes.
Or until some under informed part time writer and keyboard warrior comes up with some new bogus theory.

[charlie b]

Nothing is new except some of the bullet construction. At least now days I can find bullets that will penetrate and expand in "difficult" circumstances. A lot different than back in the 80's.

[BunkTheory]

150 grain jsp out of a .308 winchester can make a human head explode. Lot more powerful then a handgun.

Yet at short range a 158 jhp out of a 357 magnum comes awful close.. 44 magnum does the job rather effectively and requires a lot of money on repainting the walls, cieling, and new carpets and lots of new furniture.

Stopping power is NOT something you get from the bullet, its not a magical talisman. On paper a percussion revolver in .44 has the same rough ballistics as a 38 special.. yet its just as effective as a 44 magnum if i grab your throat, smile, and put the muzzle in your ear before i fire.

[AZ Pete]

nothing new, but magazine capacity. Reflecting on "stopping power" and my previous comment re: bullet placement, I have been unfavorably impressed by the gross number of rounds expended in many police shooting news reports. It often appears that not even the majority of rounds hit the target, much less a vital area. Maybe that is only my impression....

[Tar Heel]

It's a academic and pointless exercise for the nerds. Depends where the bullet is placed. Shoot any mammal in the brain with a 22LR and it's a 100% "one-shot-stop" with a 22LR or a 32 or a 9 or a 40 or a 45...........

There are simply too many variables to work into the formula. When you think you have a formula, see the first sentence.

[Tar Heel]

To follow up on my previous post I offer the following "old guy" perspective on this endless exercise.

I think that we can all agree on a few things:

A fair amount of horsepower is not a bad thing.
Multiple shots in rapid succession are better than a single shot.
Center mass shot placement is far better than an alternative location.
Delivery of all the above is not possible by most people.
And finally: know that luck will always rear its head.


It is also important to recognize that you are probably NOT the warrior you believe yourself to be nor do you possess the requisite lethal force training to survive an actual gunfight. It is best to AVOID a gunfight and don’t worry about the best caliber to use in a deadly confrontation. Use what you have and use it well if need be.

Instead of wondering and worrying about academic theory, why not spend the time on the range with the grandkids, a bunch of empty Coke cans, and a bucket of 22LR ammo.

[BunkTheory]

To follow up on my previous post I offer the following "old guy" perspective on this endless exercise.

I think that we can all agree on a few things:

A fair amount of horsepower is not a bad thing.
Multiple shots in rapid succession are better than a single shot.
Center mass shot placement is far better than an alternative location.
Delivery of all the above is not possible by most people.
And finally: know that luck will always rear its head.


It is also important to recognize that you are probably NOT the warrior you believe yourself to be nor do you possess the requisite lethal force training to survive an actual gunfight. It is best to AVOID a gunfight and don’t worry about the best caliber to use in a deadly confrontation. Use what you have and use it well if need be.

Instead of wondering and worrying about academic theory, why not spend the time on the range with the grandkids, a bunch of empty Coke cans, and a bucket of 22LR ammo.

There was a book about old west gunfighters that was wrote in the late 1880s. I believe it was as qoute from hickock that settled the issue

"its best to use a rifle, and shoot them from 100 yards, and from behind"

[pettypace]

Here's a chart of "Wound Trauma Incapacitation" numbers similar to Table 11-6 in Duncan MacPherson's book Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma. I've added columns for .25, .32, and .44 caliber (using MacPherson's math) and deleted his rows for JHPs with 12" and 10" penetration (where MacPherson introduced an arbitrary "penetration factor" penalty to discourage use of under-penetrating JHPs).

https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/wti_chart.png

The chart (and MacPherson's WTI Model behind it) is more sophisticated than it appears. MacPherson's behind the scenes calculations include bullet weight, velocity, diameter, and nose shape. For the non-expanding bullets, the numbers assume at least 18" penetration in bare 10% ordnance gelatin. And the WTI numbers ignore the last 3" of any penetration (where lower bullet velocity minimizes tissue damage) as well any penetration past 15" (beyond which the bullet is assumed to have exited the target). MacPherson's WTI model is limited to normal handgun velocities (say, 400-1600 ft/s) and does not deal with "tumbling" bullets. The chart is not intended for big game hunting where penetration beyond 15" would not be ignored.

For perspective, the infamous .38 Long Colt (as well as .380 and 9mm FMJ) produces 16 grams of WTI wound mass (.38 cal. All Others) and was judged inadequate. At the other end of the scale, the 12 gauge rifled slug (437 grains at 1500 ft/s mushrooming to 1.1 inch diameter and penetrating to 14 inches from Fackler's wound profile) gives a WTI wound mass of 155 grams.

Because MacPherson's WTI model takes bullet nose shape into account, some interesting comparisons are possible. For example, a well-designed JHP from a .32 ACP (25 grams), a target wadcutter from a .38 snubby (24 grams), and .45 ACP hardball (26 grams) all produce approximately the same WTI wound mass.

Of course, MacPherson's WTI model does not discount the importance of training, accuracy, shot placement, magazine capacity, recoil, concealability, and (dare I say it?) good luck. Instead, it suggests that when shot placement is less than ideal, the mass of non-vital tissue destroyed by contact with the penetrating bullet might be decisive. I think that comes as close to the idea of "stopping power" as we're likely to get.

[44MAG#1]

Is this the reveal I have been waiting on? Kinda disappointing.

[pettypace]

Is this the reveal I have been waiting on? Kinda disappointing.
Who's to say what you've been waiting for?

Are you disappointed to learn that your 40 S&W 200 grain FP cast that "trundles along slightly over 900fps" might not be any more effective than a good load from a .32 ACP or a .38 snubby with target wadcutters?

If you disagree with the model, fine. But please explain your reasoning. Your disappointment doesn't count for much.

[44MAG#1]

Not worth it.

[charlie b]

Where do they relate the WTI numbers to how fast (or slow) someone is actually incapacitated, ie, is unable to aim and pull a trigger?

From what I can tell it just indicates how fast someone will bleed out. That means quite a few seconds for them to still be in the fight.

Sent from my SM-P580 using Tapatalk

[pettypace]

Where do they relate the WTI numbers to how fast (or slow) someone is actually incapacitated, ie, is unable to aim and pull a trigger?

From what I can tell it just indicates how fast someone will bleed out. That means quite a few seconds for them to still be in the fight.



Good question! Too bad MacPherson isn't here to give a good answer. But I'll try...

There's talk of different modes of incapacitation: Psychological incapacitation is when the attacker is unwilling to continue. Physiological incapacitation when the attacker is unable to continue.

Physiological incapacitation might be the instantaneous result of damage to a part of the central nervous system or the slower result of blood loss from damage to a major organ or blood vessel eventually depriving the brain of oxygen and stopping the attack. In either case, adequate penetration and fortuitous shot placement are more important than horsepower. So, a .25 ACP that hits a vital structure might work where a .45 ACP that just misses a vital structure might not.

But MacPherson is talking about something else. He writes that the "WTI scale is a rating of the effectiveness of cartridges when... bullet impact location is not ideal." So, the question is whether physiological incapacitation can be achieved through damage to non-vital tissue.

This may sound far-fetched. But MacPherson harkens back to the 1904 Thompson-LaGarde Chicago Union Stock Yard tests where beef critters were slaughtered with a variety of handgun cartridges to determine the most effective cartridge for the US military. The testing included cartridges from .30 Luger to .476 Webley and eventually resulted in the adoption of the .45 ACP and Colt's 1911.

One phase of the Thompson-LaGarde testing involved rapid fire shooting into "non-vital parts" of the beef critters until the animals finally dropped. The results went something like this: the animals were brought to their knees after three to five shots from the heavy .45's, after seven shots from the .38's, and failed to succumb after ten shots with the .30 Luger.

So, MacPherson used his penetration modeling to determine total "wound trauma incapacitation" numbers for these tests and found that, regardless of the caliber, it took about 220 grams of wound mass to non-vital parts to incapacitate a steer. With the smaller calibers it just took more shots to finally reach 220 grams of wound mass.

MacPherson speculates that when shot placement is less than ideal, an attacker might actually be physiologically incapacitated when enough non-vital tissue is destroyed by the bullet (or more likely, bullets).

If I remember right, MacPherson pegs this "critical mass" (my term, not his) at around 30 to 40 grams and somewhere suggests that if that's not enough, then you probably need more.

MacPherson isn't dogmatic about any of this. He simply says that adequate penetration is critical -- don't leave home without it. Fortuitous shot placement might be decisive -- but you can't count on it. And when shot placement is less than ideal, the accumulation of as much wound mass as possible is your next best bet. Beyond that, he provides what he believes to be the best way to calculate the wound mass numbers. The chart below shows a range of those calculations:

https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/wti_chart.png

Obviously, there are lots of ways to accumulate that critical mass of 30 to 40 grams (or more) of wound mass. And if you're lucky, you might not even need it. After all, a single CNS hit from your vest pocket .25 will cause instant incapacitation.

[44MAG#1]

All will be revealed at the proper time.

I ask again. Is this the reveal you were talking about in the quoted post?

[jaguarxk120]

Maybe this "reveal" will only come to those that have the " Secret Decoder Ring"!!

[Dale53]

There are NO absolutes here! What there are, however, are good pieces of info the rate, POOR, AVERAGE, BETTER, and BEST! I found that useful and when hunting everything from varmints, edible small game, and large WT Deer found that the "principles" made sense. The difference on small game with a .38 round nose to a target WC or even better, a "full charge" wadcutter was and IS dramatic! Those same principles apply to humans, as long as you factor in the differences (human stands upright and is relatively thin front to rear, and a four legged annimal needs more penetration, etc.

Bottom line, for me, was .45 Hardball was/is quite effective but a flat nosed bullet out of a .45 ACP or revolver is BETTER! That is useful knowledge and can lead you to better anti-personnel loads in your daily carry!

FWIW
Dale53

[44MAG#1]

Maybe this "reveal" will only come to those that have the " Secret Decoder Ring"!!

Evidentally. So far it is just like the many, many, many, many other threads on stopping power posted on this forum and many other forums elsewhere on the WWW.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Did I post this yet?

Some people can’t learn unless they have visuals. This might help


https://youtu.be/5AhcuLWIe3A

[44MAG#1]

Did I post this yet?

Some people can’t learn unless they have visuals. This might help


https://youtu.be/5AhcuLWIe3A

I'm glad I didn't watch the whole thing, just a very few minutes of it.

[Michael J. Spangler]

I'm glad I didn't watch the whole thing, just a very few minutes of it.

Why is that?

[44MAG#1]

Why is that?

Do you really need to ask?

[Michael J. Spangler]

Do you really need to ask?

I guess I don’t but then again you don’t need to post on this thread at all. Considering the negativity towards it. I’m just trying to see your point of view. Maybe you can sell me on something better than 10 years of research from the members of the IWBA.

[stubshaft]

Did I post this yet?

Some people can’t learn unless they have visuals. This might help


https://youtu.be/5AhcuLWIe3A

Long but interesting.

[44MAG#1]

Yes, it was long.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Yes, it was long.

That’s why you didn’t watch it?

[44MAG#1]

Only a few minutes of it. It is where you hit them and what you destroy. I didn't know that.

[cainttype]

Did I post this yet?

Some people can’t learn unless they have visuals. This might help


https://youtu.be/5AhcuLWIe3A

Thanks for posting an excellent link. The wealth of information contained in it is as accurate today as it was when the film was made.
The noteworthy post-addition of the proper use and preparation of ballistic gelatin should be of special interest to anyone thinking that the average magazine article, or youtube video, using homemade gelatin concoctions have any relevance at all… Most don’t.

Anyone really interested in the subject, especially newer shooters, should take the time to benefit from the knowledge of real experts in the field.

[BunkTheory]

I guess I don’t but then again you don’t need to post on this thread at all. Considering the negativity towards it. I’m just trying to see your point of view. Maybe you can sell me on something better than 10 years of research from the members of the IWBA.

INTERNATIONAL WATERFOWL BREEDERS ASSOCIATION - Home …
https://officialiwba.weebly.com

Injured Workers Bar Association - MemberClicks
https://iwba.memberclicks.net/login

Bottled Water | International Bottled Water Association
https://bottledwater.org

international wound ballistics association iwba?

All of them about the same amount of tug and pull when it comes to handguns topping powing.. and how usefull things can be. More people die from accidents like drowning in the bathtub, and from drug overdoses

[cainttype]

Looks like a Troll can double post with a VPN.

[pettypace]

INTERNATIONAL WATERFOWL BREEDERS ASSOCIATION - Home …
https://officialiwba.weebly.com

Injured Workers Bar Association - MemberClicks
https://iwba.memberclicks.net/login

Bottled Water | International Bottled Water Association
https://bottledwater.org

international wound ballistics association iwba?

All of them about the same amount of tug and pull when it comes to handguns topping powing.. and how usefull things can be. More people die from accidents like drowning in the bathtub, and from drug overdoses


I don't understand the above. But for anyone actually interested, all issues of the Wound Ballistics Review --- the journal of the now defunct International Wound Ballistics Association --- are available online here: https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/

There's a lot of good information there. For example, the very last issue contains the complete set of Fackler's wound profiles.

[35remington]

pp, thanks for reposting that.

[cainttype]

……. for anyone actually interested, all issues of the Wound Ballistics Review --- the journal of the now defunct International Wound Ballistics Association --- are available online here: https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/

There's a lot of good information there. For example, the very last issue contains the complete set of Fackler's wound profiles.

Thanks for posting that link.
The IWBA files were hard to locate for awhile, so making it easier for newer shooters that are interested in the subject to find solid information is a really good thing.

[memtb]

Here is another source of information, that may be quite relevant pertaining to this topic! Maybe the reason that I like it is because I’m not a die hard believer in ft/lbs of energy being as important as it’s many worshipers would have us believe! memtb

http://rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

[pettypace]

Here is another source of information, that may be quite relevant pertaining to this topic! Maybe the reason that I like it is because I’m not a die hard believer in ft/lbs of energy being as important as it’s many worshipers would have us believe! memtb

http://rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

memtb: Thanks for that link!

And thanks also for your signature quote:


You should not use a rifle that will kill an animal when everything goes right; you should use one that will do the job when everything goes wrong." -Bob Hagel

That's not just sound advice for selecting a hunting rifle. But I think it's also close to what handgun stopping power is all about -- the ability to incapacitate an attacker when your shot placement sucks.

MacPherson's WTI wound mass numbers simply quantify that ability.

[44MAG#1]

Could someone who has good understanding of these studies write a clear, coherent paragraph on what they have learned by them .
What say you OP?
Is there anything that is clear?
Is there a caliber and load for that caliber the "experts" say is the "do all" for self defense?
Someone please write that paragraph.

[Doughty]

C'mon 44Mag, that would just be babbling on. Just make it a 15 second sound bite. You could do that.

[memtb]

memtb: Thanks for that link!

And thanks also for your signature quote:



That's not just sound advice for selecting a hunting rifle. But I think it's also close to what handgun stopping power is all about -- the ability to incapacitate an attacker when your shot placement sucks.

MacPherson's WTI wound mass numbers simply quantify that ability.


:drinks: memtb

[BunkTheory]

Could someone who has good understanding of these studies write a clear, coherent paragraph on what they have learned by them .
What say you OP?
Is there anything that is clear?
Is there a caliber and load for that caliber the "experts" say is the "do all" for self defense?
Someone please write that paragraph.

any cartrdige in a handgun, 22lr and larger, when fired into the back of the human head results in a fatality about 90% of the, unlucky ****'s that survive tend to be vegtables tha tWISH the shooter used a bigger gun

[44MAG#1]

any cartrdige in a handgun, 22lr and larger, when fired into the back of the human head results in a fatality about 90% of the, unlucky ****'s that survive tend to be vegtables tha tWISH the shooter used a bigger gun

Now we know.

[charlie b]

any cartrdige in a handgun, 22lr and larger, when fired into the back of the human head results in a fatality about 90% of the, unlucky ****'s that survive tend to be vegtables tha tWISH the shooter used a bigger gun

Yep, I'd say 90% is about right. Many years ago there were some kids in town playing with a .22 revolver. Started out as Russian roulette and then they started pointing it at each other. One kid was shot in the head from behind. The bullet skidded around the skull under the skin and came our above one eye. He survived with a concussion and a few stitches.

[BunkTheory]

Yep, I'd say 90% is about right. Many years ago there were some kids in town playing with a .22 revolver. Started out as Russian roulette and then they started pointing it at each other. One kid was shot in the head from behind. The bullet skidded around the skull under the skin and came our above one eye. He survived with a concussion and a few stitches.

yet i remember a case from the 90s an autistic kid used a pellet gun to peg a mail man in the eye killing the poor fellow.

Murphy rules as always, but smaller makes more problems.

[charlie b]

Yep. It's like when we debated motorcycle safety and equipment. Several had examples of people who died from falling over in the driveway or at a stoplight.

[44MAG#1]

Yep. It's like when we debated motorcycle safety and equipment. Several had examples of people who died from falling over in the driveway or at a stoplight.

Just like everyone has a friend, that has a brother, that has a friend that has an uncle that has a neighbor that has a cousin that had a deceased brother that knew someone that was shot in the index finger with a 25 auto that dropped dead.

[cainttype]

The DEEPER the hole, the BIGGER the hole, the BETTER the hole… It ain’t rocket science.
You’re job is to put the hole where it matters.

[Dale53]

Cainttype;
Truer words were never spoken!

Dale53

[44MAG#1]

The DEEPER the hole, the BIGGER the hole, the BETTER the hole… It ain’t rocket science.
You’re job is to put the hole where it matters.

Is this anything new.
I was hoping for an Epiphany.

[cainttype]

Is this anything new.
I was hoping for an Epiphany.

If it’s too complicated for you, perhaps you should watch the video you attempted to disparage earlier as being too “long”… You obviously have the time to waste.

[44MAG#1]

If it’s too complicated for you, perhaps you should watch the video you attempted to disparage earlier as being too “long”… You obviously have the time to waste.

If you can tell me if the video reveals an Epiphany I will watch. While I did not watch ALL of it I watched enough of it but must have missed the Epiphany

[cainttype]

I'm glad I didn't watch the whole thing, just a very few minutes of it.


Yes, it was long.


Only a few minutes of it. It is where you hit them and what you destroy. I didn't know that.


Could someone who has good understanding of these studies write a clear, coherent paragraph on what they have learned by them .
What say you OP?
Is there anything that is clear?
Is there a caliber and load for that caliber the "experts" say is the "do all" for self defense?
Someone please write that paragraph.


If you can tell me if the video reveals an Epiphany I will watch. While I did not watch ALL of it I watched enough of it but must have missed the Epiphany

You seem very confused, or very trollish… It doesn’t matter to me.
I figured I’d quote you before you had the opportunity to run back and erase your posts like you did the first time you were identified as acting like a troll (Posts 44, 46… 50 was after you erased a dozen useless disparaging posts but couldn’t resist the urge to return and be “special”).

Your general wannabe soapbox trollish behavior belies the fact that there are NEW shooters joining the sport/hobby every day, and most of them will be asking questions many experienced shooters formed opinions on decades ago.
You’ve had the opportunity to offer constructive input here for months, but you chose to simply disparage the thread and troll decent members for trying to help.

You wasting your time is nothing to me, but me wasting my time on you is too boring.
I’m solving the issue by putting you on “IGNORE” from now on so I can avoid the drivel you attempt to pass off as intelligent conversation.

[Michael J. Spangler]

You seem very confused, or very trollish… It doesn’t matter to me.
I figured I’d quote you before you had the opportunity to run back and erase your posts like you did the first time you were identified as acting like a troll (Posts 44, 46… 50 was after you erased a dozen useless disparaging posts but couldn’t resist the urge to return and be “special”).

Your general wannabe soapbox trollish behavior belies the fact that there are NEW shooters joining the sport/hobby every day, and most of them will be asking questions many experienced shooters formed opinions on decades ago.
You’ve had the opportunity to offer constructive input here for months, but you chose to simply disparage the thread and troll decent members for trying to help.

You wasting your time is nothing to me, but me wasting my time on you is too boring.
I’m solving the issue by putting you on “IGNORE” from now on so I can avoid the drivel you attempt to pass off as intelligent conversation.

Bravo!

[Doughty]

What cainttype said!

[charlie b]

The video was simple. Several large holes that penetrate all the way through kill faster than one small hole that does not penetrate all the way through. The fewer and smaller the holes, the slower they bleed out.