The Best Handgun Caliber - A Real World Study
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!
|
   
   
|
|
The Best Handgun Caliber - A Real World Study
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!
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.
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”.... Mark Twain
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.
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”.... Mark Twain
The OP asked for opinions, if that bothers you it seems odd that you continuously post your’s.
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”.... Mark Twain
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.
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.”
You must have misread the opening post, which asked for opinions, references, and history.Originally Posted by pettypace
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”.
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”.... Mark Twain
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.
https://www.pistolsmith.com/threads/...-fackler.1420/
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthrea...hall-and-Sanow
You might find these reviews and articles interesting if you haven’t read them already.
Last edited by cainttype; 07-30-2021 at 09:50 AM.
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”.... Mark Twain
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.
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”.... Mark Twain
Debunked and discredited by whom, a 9MM lover, a 45 Auto lover? Maybe a 357 Mag lover?
Maybe a 25 Auto lover?
https://www.1911forum.com/threads/i-...ow-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
The ENEMY is listening.
HE wants to know what YOU know.
Keep it to yourself.
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.
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”.... Mark Twain
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...
Before you break into my house stand outside and get right with Jesus tell him you're on your way!!
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
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.
Rule 303
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/f...nd-ballistics/
Insight on a real expert.
https://www.pistolsmith.com/threads/...-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/showthrea...hall-and-Sanow
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”.... Mark Twain
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
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.
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”.... Mark Twain
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!
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote