Handgun Stopping Power Revisited

[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?

[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/sel...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.