Handgun Stopping Power Revisited

[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/...-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/...-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.



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.



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...d=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.



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...d=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.