[1 old 0311]

I have read about the Strosburg, Marshall, Hatcher, model clay, and gelitan tests for one shot stops with a handgun. Does anyone, or would anyone, shoot in a defensive situation and only fire one round? I hit the range once a week and practice with double or triple hits. Are these 'tests' really that valuable or do we just buy the top shelf ammo to make us feel good?

Kevin

[TexasRifleman]

Are these 'tests' really that valuable or do we just buy the top shelf ammo to make us feel good?

You know the answer to this don't you? :evil:


Hitting what you aim at is #1. Hitting it again and again is #2.

What kind of cool looking box the ammo came in is #461

But, we're all guilty of that at one time or another.
I have been REALLY bad about it at times.

You have brought up a very interesting topic.

You'll get radical answers on both sides I'm sure.

For me I guess, I know that a good solid hit with ANY round is
90% of the battle, but if having some kind of "super ammo" gets
me that extra 1 or 2 percent, I will go for it. Maybe 1 or 2 percent
is all I need to make the difference.

Mostly I just hope I never have to find out.

[Larry Ashcraft]

We were at a Q&A session a couple weeks ago with a deputy district attorney, part of the CCW training here, to learn about the legalities of self defense.

Anyway, the deputy, Steve Fieldman, has been with the DA's office for over 20 years, and investigated a lot of crimes, so he does have some experience in these matters.

He said: "No matter what you've seen on TV or in the movies, the person shot does NOT fly backwards or even stop at the shot, even with a shotgun. If someone is charging you from 20 feet away, and you shoot him three times with your .45, he will still be coming at you. He may be dead at the first shot, but his momentum will continue carrying him toward you, and he will still have a few seconds of life left to do you great harm."

So I think the myth of the one shot stop is just that, a myth.

[1 old 0311]

Hi Sig,

My Hydra-Shoks are 2 1/2 times the cost of White Box. Glasers or Mag Safe is like 6 times the cost. Maybe we just need to get more accurate and shoot more.

Kevin

[mete]

The rule is - always shoot and continue to shoot until the BG is no longer a threat !! The 'one shot stop' percentage is a mathematical excercise not a tactical proceedure !!

[Vern Humphrey]

Does anyone, or would anyone, shoot in a defensive situation and only fire one round?

I think the one shot stop concept (and the data purporting to support it) is bogus.

That said, there's a big difference between firing many rounds and getting many hits. Expect a 90% performance degradation under real stress. Double, triple, and quadruple tap all you want -- but one hit may be all you get.

[Txsnake]

A robbery at a Dallas Pizza store about 20 years ago told me all I needed to know about the "one shot stop". The perp was robbing the manager with a shotgun leveled at his chest across the counter. One thing lead to another and the weapon discharged hitting the manager in the center of the chest at less than 2 feet, destroyed the man's heart. The manager ran into his office and phoned police. He expired in the chair with the phone in his hand.

Shoot until the threat ends. And when you testify, remember, you shot to "stop" the threat and nothing else.

[Sunray]

"...The 'one shot stop'..." Is a myth. No handgun round gives 100% reliable stops with any number of shots.

[Tokugawa]

You want a one shot stop- use a flamethrower.

[MM]

Or a blooper w/ canister...
SatCong

[Jamie C.]

Until somebody comes up with a round that stops all electromagnetic activity within the human nervous system instantly, even with a near-miss, it's always going to come down to luck.

Either that, or a disintegrator gun, like Marvin the Martian's, from the old WB cartoons. :rolleyes:

Until then, all we can do is shoot straight, and keep shooting until the trouble-maker falls down and quits twitching...


J.C.

[jashobeam]

I am so glad to hear everyone (so far) doubting the validity of the 'one shot stop'.

Not long ago there was a thread about which firearm would be the best home defense weapon for an untrained person, a .357 Magnum revolver or a 9mm Glock. What people mostly wanted to discuss was reliability (revolvers are more reliable than automatics or vice versa). After reading 2+ pages of this back and forth arguing, I asked in post #57 which firearm could be most easily fired multiple times by an untrained person (BTW, I think that if a weapon is purchased with the intention that a particular person might use that gun for self-defense, then said person should have a basic understanding of how the gun functions and fires). Apparently, no one thought much of my follow-up shot argument because no one bothered to comment on it. I was a little disappointed by this lack of response because I really thought I had a valid point to contribute. I hope no one minds that I quote myself here. If you do mind, go ahead and skip it. For those who are so inclined to read it, what do you think of my reasoning and of the questions I posed?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=1944158#post1944158

What about ease or difficulty of rapidly firing multiple rounds?

Since many of these posts have focused on untrained (or undertrained) individuals, which type of firearm could such a person use best in an actual home defense situation--IF a malfunction did NOT occur? I am, for the sake of argument, going to eliminate malfunction as a point of concern and examine another potentially important issue. Remember that we are talking about an unskilled person shooting at an intruder, most likely in a darkened house. The intruder is believed to pose a life/bodily-harm threat; this threat must be eliminated. In such a mission, where failure may cost us our lives, who among us at THR would shoot one shot in the dark at a shadowy figure that we believe means to harms us or our families? Am I the only one who imagines my opening salvo consisting of a three shot burst? It's dark. I can't see if he's got a gun pointed at me. I'm not going to shoot once and wait to see what happens next. I'm not talking about shooting someone for trying to steal my TV. If I'm shooting someone, it's because I am convinced he's coming to get me or my loved ones. I'm gonna shoot him until he falls, and then probably shoot a couple more as guarantors.

Even for skilled persons--which, remember, we are not talking about--which is easier to bring back on target for an immediate follow-up shot, a 9mm auto or a .357 Magnum revolver? Which is easier to fire rapidly while remaining on target?

Before someone comes along and posts that one shot is all that is needed from a .357 Magnum, I will again recall our attention to the fact that the shooter in question is untrained (unprepared). Someone with little shooting experience will have serious doubts about being able to hit an inteded target, especially in a life threatening situation. Would such a person, totally lacking in confidence, really want to rely on a single shot (after which he/she would be deaf and blinded by muzzle flash)? Can someone lacking practice rapidly fire a .357 Magnum?

I fully appreciate all of the posts about jams and malfunctions. It has not been my intention to minimize that issue, but only to examine a different issue. Some failures are not the fault of the gun, but of the bullet (bad primers). Everyone who chooses to arm himself with a gun should become well-acquainted with the functioning of that gun. It would be tragic if someone armed with the means to protect himself died because he couldn't figure out what to do when his gun misfired. BTW, I have a Glock 17

[Double Naught Spy]

"...The 'one shot stop'..." Is a myth. No handgun round gives 100% reliable stops with any number of shots.

The "one shot stop" is not a myth. It does happen. Since it does happen, I think some of y'all may be confusing the differences between whether or not one shot stops can happen and the perceived extrapolation that if you use X brand ammo reported to have a one shop stop *%, that one can expect the same percentage outcome if one uses the same ammo.

Plus, nobody involved in putting together one shot stop data has ever claimed than any round gives 100% reliable stops. It is correct that no handgun round gives 100/% reliable stops with any number of shots, but it is also correct that no rifle does either, or grenade, missile, bomb, etc.

I think some of y'all are confusing issues. It is not that one shot stops are a myth

Larry, your deputy's statement is in error even though he has 20 years of experience and knows about such matters.
He said: "No matter what you've seen on TV or in the movies, the person shot does NOT fly backwards or even stop at the shot, even with a shotgun. If someone is charging you from 20 feet away, and you shoot him three times with your .45, he will still be coming at you. He may be dead at the first shot, but his momentum will continue carrying him toward you, and he will still have a few seconds of life left to do you great harm."

If the bad guy charging you from 20 feet and you shoot him three times, if he is dead after the first shot, then his activity will cease and he will drop. His forward momentum will do nothing more than having him fall towards you. Note that the charging person's momentum, if dead, will not keep locomotor action in operation. In other words, if dead, he won't be running, walking, etc., no matter how much momentum he has.

You see, they deputy is confused about the differences between mortally wounded and actually being dead. Legally, death is defined as being brain dead where there is a complete and irreversible cessation of brain activity.

[QUOTE]Expect a 90% performance degradation under real stress.[QUOTE]
Vern, where did you come up with this expectation? Do you have a source or shot data?

[1911 guy]

Maybe an engineer can help me design this and we'll go into business together. It's a handgun that fires six pound sledgehammers at four thousand feet per second. Anything less than that, I'm shooting again.

[ghost squire]

By my calculations that would have about 5 million footpounds of energy, possibly enough to vaporise all surrounding tissue until it runs out of tissue to vaporise. Unless it hits a limb in which case the limb will be promptly removed.

Now that is a one shot stop folks! When you shoot someone in the gut and their spine turns to base protein molecules.

[Kurush]

Article on statistical analysis of Marshall/Sanow one-shot-stop "data" proving it was faked:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs24.htm#Too%20Good%20To%20Be%20True

More on the faked data:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm

Yet more on the faked data:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

Review by Martin Fackler of "Street Stoppers":
http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm

"One-Shot Drops Surviving the Myth" FBI bulletin explaining how the "one shot stop" myth can endanger lives:
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_15

[1911 guy]

I go on another board occasionally and there's a fellow who is the definition of "keyboard Komando". Quotes these stats incessantly. Good to know he's as full of it as I thought.

Ghost Squire, you were able to do the energy work-up, how about some design work? 50/50, partner!

[valor1]

Maybe a .50 caliber Barrett rifle aimed at the head and shot pointblank will do a one shot stop. An 1890 cannon may even produce the desired result if shot at pointblank range.:D

[Lucky 7]

One-shot stops? With a pistol? Hell, will those poodleshooters we, the boys in green, use? Nope not gonna happen unless ya take valors advice!
Semper Fi!
-L7

[1 old 0311]

Sounds like everybody agrees that we should buy the cheap stuff and just practice more. Any ammo makers on here?

Kevin

[LeonCarr]

Fire til the Felon Falls.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[EddieCoyle]

Rule No. 5 - If you have to use your gun, keep firing until you hear a click.

[Vern Humphrey]

Rule No. 5 - If you have to use your gun, keep firing until you hear a click.

Larry Word was the best tactician the US Army produced in my lifetime. He said,

1. Fire your first shot at the most dangerous target.

2. Every shot is your first shot.

3. Keep shooting as long as you have a target.

[JShirley]

jashobeam,

Some months ago, I had a protracted difference of opinion on this subject with friends on another board.

I essentially postulated something similar: instead of revolvers being "best for new shooters", semiautos are actually much easier to use. They hold more rounds, are much faster and easier to reload under stress, and are typically more controllable.

It was a long and dirty fight with no clear victor...:uhoh:

John

[ghost squire]

Ghost Squire, you were able to do the energy work-up, how about some design work? 50/50, partner!

Ok, I will design some sledgehammers, and you can build the pistol that fires them at 4,000 feet per second LOL! :D

Then we can sell them to the Vietnamese as a low recoil self defense pistol, and to big game hunters.

Jshirley, is there ever a clear victor in internet debates?

[VARifleman]

By my calculations that would have about 5 million footpounds of energy, possibly enough to vaporise all surrounding tissue until it runs out of tissue to vaporise. Unless it hits a limb in which case the limb will be promptly removed.

Now that is a one shot stop folks! When you shoot someone in the gut and their spine turns to base protein molecules.
No, it's not 5 million, it's about 1 and a half million.

1/2 * m * v^2 = 1/2 * 0.031081 * w * v^2

w= 6 lbs, v = 4000 ft/sec

0.031081 lbs per slug * 6 lbs = .186486 slugs = .186486 pounds per feet per second squared

4000^2 = 16,000,000 feet^2/seconds ^2

1/2 *(.186486 lbs * sec^2/ ft )* 16,000,000 (ft^2/sec ^2)= 1,491,888 ft*lbs

[JShirley]

I've seen it happen...:uhoh:

[Kurush]

One more thing, when I say "one shot stop" is a myth, I don't mean that it's impossible to stop in one shot. A 22lr (or a 9mm or an 1890 cannon :) ) at close range into the eyeball will stop a person cold. The problem with these "statistics" (actually faked and misrepresented anecdotes) is that they're based on the claim that:
"The issue of lethality is strictly one of shot placement; the issue of stopping power is more one of energy transfer." -- Street Stoppers Marshall & SanowWhich is simply untrue. There is no magic bullet that, regardless of shot placement, makes the opponent collapse dramatically like a victorian ballroom dancer with one shot. The only way to reliably stop an opponent (or game animal) is to damage their central nervous system or cause hypovolemic shock through blood loss. With that in mind, it becomes obvious that collecting statistics (even legitimate statistics) of shootings and recording only the caliber is pointless, because the caliber has little to do with whether the bullet hits the CNS.

[Vern Humphrey]

Which is simply untrue. There is no magic bullet that, regardless of shot placement, makes the opponent collapse dramatically like a victorian ballroom dancer with one shot.

The closest approach I can make to the truth is to say, "It's the hole that kills." That is to say, given equal shot placment, a bigger and deeper hole will destroy and disrupt more tissue, and the target will bleed out faster.

[jashobeam]

Thank you for your response.

[Vern Humphrey]

Most guys will be stopped by a single chest hit with a decent load. However, most just means "more than half", which is not very comforting. He's REALLY full of it about the shotgun. It's very rare for a blast of buckshot, if it is well centered on the chest, to fail to stop a man. Yes, it has happened, but such things are 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 rarities. No, their "momentum' does not keep them coming. Their knees buckle and the only possible forward movemnt is their torso falling the 4 ft or so distance of their knees to their faces.

I had a good friend in Virginia who was a Medical Examiner. He tells of a case where a man was shot in the chest with a shotgun and walked a block and a half and sat down on his front step to die. He performed the autopsy and described the heart as "shredded."

On the witness stand, a lawyer challenged him, "Do you expect me to believe that a man walked that far with no heart at all?"

And my friend replied, "I don't care what you believe, Councilor. That's what happened."

[JohnKSa]

The closest approach I can make to the truth is to say, "It's the hole that kills." That is to say, given equal shot placment, a bigger and deeper hole will destroy and disrupt more tissue, and the target will bleed out faster.You can get closer than that. It's not the hole that kills, it's WHERE the hole is that kills. There are a huge number of ways and places to shoot a person that will not kill them or even significantly incapacitate them. Regardless of caliber. And there are even more ways and places to shoot them that will incapacitate or kill them, but not for a long time. You can't expect any qualities or parameters of the bullet to do anything significant if the hole isn't in the right place.

[Vern Humphrey]

You can get closer than that. It's not the hole that kills, it's WHERE the hole is that kills.

Far be it from me to argue with bullet placement. But all things being equal, the bigger the hole, the better.

An example might be the Gallant Major Ringold, shot through both thighs at Palo Alto -- by a cannon ball (which also passed through his horse.) He died quickly from a wound that might have been survivable with a musket ball.

[JohnKSa]

Sorry bout that, I was in the midst of an edit and things on my end went gefurkt. Since you've already replied, I'll just repost with the entire post in edited form: Added one parenthetical at the very end of the post after reading your reply.

The closest approach I can make to the truth is to say, "It's the hole that kills." That is to say, given equal shot placment, a bigger and deeper hole will destroy and disrupt more tissue, and the target will bleed out faster.You can get closer than that. It's not the hole that kills, it's WHERE the hole is that kills. There are a huge number of ways and places to shoot a person that will not kill them or even significantly incapacitate them. Regardless of caliber. And there are a huge number of ways and places to shoot them that will incapacitate or kill them, but not for a long time.

You can't expect any qualities or parameters of the bullet to make a significant difference if the hole isn't in the right place.

Conversely, if the hole IS in the right place, a few hundredths of an inch of diameter difference or a few thousandths of a square inch of frontal area difference won't make a significant difference either.

All of this is predicated on the assumption that we're comparing performance within a general class of firearms--i.e. comparing one service pistol caliber to another, not magnum hunting loads to rimfire calibers. (Or cannons to muskets.) ;)

[Vern Humphrey]

Conversely, if the hole IS in the right place, a few hundredths of an inch of diameter difference or a few thousandths of an inch of frontal area difference won't make a significant difference either.


Yes and no. A .22 Short to the brain will kill as quickly as a .458 Lott hitting the same spot. On the other hand, a hit in the butt by a .458 Lott is liable to be a lot more disabling than a hit by a .22 Short.

[JohnKSa]

Yes, and NOT no. ;)
All of this is predicated on the assumption that we're comparing performance within a general class of firearms--i.e. comparing one service pistol caliber to another, not magnum hunting loads to rimfire calibers.

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes, and NOT no. ;)
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
All of this is predicated on the assumption that we're comparing performance within a general class of firearms--i.e. comparing one service pistol caliber to another, not magnum hunting loads to rimfire calibers.

Okay, make it a .25 ACP versus a .45 Colt, "Ruger Only" load.:p

The point is, there is little advantage between one cartridge/bullet combination and another if you make a perfect shot. But for less than perfect shots, better bullets, larger calibers and more velocity have the advantage.

[JohnKSa]

Vern,

No one argues about the effectiveness of a .25ACP compared to the.454Casull.

People understand the basic classes of handgun performance:
When I say pocket pistol, no one thinks .357Magnum even though there are a few .357 guns that might qualify as pocket pistols.
When I say magnum handguns, no one thinks .25ACP.
When I say service pistol, no one thinks .454 Casull.

And everyone understands that when you go from one class to another (pocket pistol to service pistol to magnum) that there's an increase in performance. No one argues that magnum handguns (as a class) are superior, in terms of terminal performance, to service pistols (as a class).

The superiority arguments come WITHIN classes. 9mm vs .38SP, .40 vs .45ACP, etc.

That's why I carefully stated that my comments applied to comparisons WITHIN A SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CLASS rather than leave the comments unqualified.

WITHIN A PERFORMANCE CLASS, specifically the service pistol class (.38spl, .45ACP, .40S&W, 9mm, etc.), bigger has NOT been shown to be better.

The reason that is true is that any minor differences in performance within a performance class are completely swamped by shot placement issues.

Stated another way.

It is completely unprofitable to quibble over hundredths of an inch or thousandths of a square inch and the theoretical effects that those trivial numbers MIGHT make when it is CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCABLY true that a few inches difference of shot placement WILL have a predictable and tremendous difference in effect.

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern,

No one argues about the effectiveness of a .25ACP compared to the.454Casull.

People understand the basic classes of handgun performance:
When I say pocket pistol, no one thinks .357Magnum even though there are a few .357 guns that might qualify as pocket pistols.
When I say magnum handguns, no one thinks .25ACP.
When I say service pistol, no one thinks .454 Casull.

And everyone understands that when you go from one class to another (pocket pistol to service pistol to magnum) that there's an increase in performance. No one argues that magnum handguns (as a class) are superior to service pistols (as a class).

The superiority arguments come WITHIN classes. 9mm vs .38SP, .40 vs .45ACP, etc.

That's why I stated that my comments applied to comparisons WITHIN A SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CLASS rather than leave the comments unqualified.

You're kind of defining the problem out of exitance. In effect, you're proving that you can make increments smaller than the margin of error of the measuring instrument -- something no one denies.

[JohnKSa]

You're kind of defining the problem out of exitance.JUST the opposite.

The whole argument is over "increments smaller than the margin of error". That's my point.

People want to state bigger is better argument in such an extreme form that no one can argue--e.g. .458Win Mag outperforms .22Short. Which is fine--but then they want to bring that back down and have it apply to 9mm vs .40S&W. You can't do that.

The only reason that the initial premise was reasonable was the extreme comparison in the original statement. Cannon vs musket. Elephant gun vs gallery round. When you get back to a real world comparison, the extreme comparison isn't helpful. No one wants to know the difference between the .500 Magnum and the .380. People want to know the difference between .45ACP and .40S&W.

But the bigger is now only a hundredth of an inch or so instead of a factor of 2. The faster is now only a fractional increase in velocity instead of a factor of 2. All of the overwhelming differences that made a person immediately accept the original premise aren't there anymore...

See, the reason the debate over the difference in effectiveness in service pistol calibers rages on is precisely because people refuse to realize that there is NO significant difference in effectiveness in service pistol calibers.

The differences are due to shot placement, the mindset of the attacker, the number of rounds that connect, etc. NOT due to a hundredth of an inch more diameter. NOT due to a bit more velocity or a little more or less energy.

[Vern Humphrey]

People want to state bigger is better argument in such an extreme form that no one can argue--e.g. .458Win Mag outperforms .22Short. Which is fine--but then they want to bring that back down and have it apply to 9mm vs .40S&W. You can't do that.


The reason extreme cases are valuable is that they offer increments that are measurable with the available instrument. So it is legitimate to say, "I can't proove A is better than B because I can't measure that finely. But I can prove that with greater increments A' is better than B'."

The question is, are there other factors that are more important than the incremental improvement that is too small to measure?

For example, is a .22 LR that you can shoot very well better than a .45 that you can't shoot nearly that well?

[Larry Ashcraft]

DNS, I see your point, and as always, value your view, but:
You see, they deputy is confused about the differences between mortally wounded and actually being dead. Legally, death is defined as being brain dead where there is a complete and irreversible cessation of brain activity.
I think the deputy was saying exactly what you are saying, instead of he is already dead he should have said he will be dead in a few seconds, but in the meantime, he still can finish or continue his attack on you.

I once shot a pronghorn through the heart and both lungs at 100 yards or so, with a .270 Win 130 gr bullet. He hunched up and then walked another ten feet or so before he stuck his horns in the ground and flipped over. He just didn't know he was dead yet.

Anyway, having seen several big game animals hit in vital areas with major calibers, which continued to run and try to get away from the threat, I still think the one shot stop is a myth (and I'm not sure you were arguing that point).

I also read an article recently (by Jim Carmichael) where a doctor had determined that one shot "drops" on big game can be attributed to the fact that the hunter "lucked out" and hit the animal in the heart just as the heart was pumping.

[TOADMAN]

I like the keep shooting until the threat stops idea...best...

[JohnKSa]

The reason extreme cases are valuable is that they offer increments that are measurable with the available instrument.You could also say that the reason they're NECESSARY is because there is no measureable difference if you don't resort to the extreme cases. ;) And that's exactly what I've been saying all along. Is anyone REALLY interested in a theoretical difference that is essentially unquantifiable? I can't see how anyone rational would be..For example, is a .22 LR that you can shoot very well better than a .45 that you can't shoot nearly that well?That's a matter of degree. It depends on how well you shoot the .22 and how badly you shoot the .45. I think everyone agrees that a hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .45. But, again, that's a comparison that does no one any good. People are not out there trying to make the decision between carrying a 22 and carrying a 45. There might be people trying to choose between a 22 and a 25, or a 40 and a 45, but a 22 vs a 45? Not very likely at all. As before, resorting to the extreme case provides an answer that is essentially useless.

If the extreme case comparison is actually proof for the bigger is better argument (as it applies to comparing calibers within a performance class), if it really is valuable, it MUST come along with a method to show how the extreme case scales to the trivial case. And there isn't any such method. There just isn't.

[Double Naught Spy]

Article on statistical analysis of Marshall/Sanow one-shot-stop "data" proving it was faked:

Sorry Kurush, based on your statement above, but I think you were unaware of what a statistical analysis can and cannot do. Statistical analyses do not actually prove anything. They simply give a probability.

"One-Shot Drops Surviving the Myth" FBI bulletin explaining how the "one shot stop" myth can endanger lives:
Did you read the article, Kurush? Go back and read the section called "The Myth." The myth has nothing to do with one shot stops, but the unrealistically high amount of bad guys dropped by singular shots. While folks know they are movie stunts, as they note, many officers expect that sort of performance to happen when they are in a fight. That expectation is one germinated by the countless Hollywood portrayals of one shot drops. It is the expectation of officers of the mythical Hollywood one stop drops that is how lives can be endangered as those sorts of events are very rare in real life shootings, especially when compared to the vast number of Hollywood portrayals of one stop drops.

If you check the Endnotes section, you will see that the officers didn't even cite any of the OSS articles. That is because they were not discussing on shot stops.

--------

Larry, that is where so much confusion gets introduced and then passed on as "facts" when they are in error. What you reported the deputy said is completely different from what he should have said. The condition of death, brain death, is fairly binary. Either you are brain dead or you are not brain dead.

So it isn't the momentum of the mortally wounded guy charging you that will carry him to you, but the fact that without brain death and or a CNS shutdown, the human body is still able to function. Even with the heart not pumping blood, adrenaline in the system will allow your muscles to continue to function via anaerobic chemical activity as opposed to aerobic which is how we normally function most of the time. So it isn't that the guy charging you has momentum that carries him to you. He does have momentum, but even with a stopped heart, he may function quite well for 10-30 seconds. In that time, he can alter the momentum of his direction of travel. He can stop, turn or whatever much like a non-mortally wounded person.

So, the mortally wounded person is not dead while he can still attack you and it is not his momentum that carries him to you where he will undoubtedly try to harm you. Sorry Larry, but your source with all that experience screwed up some key concepts that are important for this discussion.

The fact that a person could be mortally wounded via their first shot and still fight on is not new at all, nor is it particular to pistol calibers or OSSs. I may be in error here, but the first or one of the first wounds suffered by Matix in the shootout with the FBI in 1986 was a mortal wound. He managed to kill and wound several agents before that wound would have eventually taken his life. It was one of his major blood vessels that had been nicked and he was bleeding out internally. As one of the surviving agents said about Platt and Matix, they were dying, but not dying fast enough.

That is probably one of the best known mortally wounded bad guy events where the bad guy did much harm. However, people are mortally wounded in all sorts of activities and still manage to perform a variety of tasks before they expire.

In your deputy's example, a person could be shot once in the heart, it being a OSS, suffer no other wounds, and the person live long enough to attack and kill others. I believe this was the point you were trying to get at by bringing up his information. And sure, it does happen. I don't recall anywhere that OSSs are necessarily instantaneous in their stopping ability.

As I said, one shot stops are not a myth. It does happen. What does appear to be a myth is how people apply the data (be it real or false doesn't matter to me) in unrealistic manners, often because they don't actually understand what OSS means, how the supposed data were compiled (rules, inclusions, exclusions), or understand the fact that every time a gun is discharged, it is a unique event, mutually exclusive from other events, particularly in regard to the outcome. So you end up with your high brow gun store commandos saying dumb things like,

I shoot Federal Hydroooshok .45 acp. It has a OSS of 96%. That pretty well means that if a bad guy comes through that door and I have to shoot him, there is only a 4% chance the fight will go beyond that and I got three more mags of Hydrooochoks if it does.

.45 acp Hydrashok may be reported to have a 96% OSS historical rating, but that has no bearing what will happen if the gun store commando shoots somebody. Historical data do not determine or influence future events.

Also, and very significant to OSS is the fact that a bad guy may stop after just one shot and not be wounded or not be seriously wounded. The OSS concept does not imply that the singular shot will necessarily be incapacitating. I think a lot of the interpretive confusion from gun store commando types is that OSS is about physically stopping the bad guys and the reality is that OSS is a mishmash of physical incapacitations and simple behavior modification. The report of a gun and/or the sensation of being shot may be enough to convince said bad guy that he needs to cease current aggression. Once the aggression has ceased, the stop is accomplished.

And this is a serious shortcoming of the OSS concept in regard to determining whether paricular ammo is more or less effective. Of the 96% Hydrashok .45 acp OSS, how many of those were produced by minor or non-incapacitating wounds? How may produced by misses? I don't know as it has been too long, if OSS data were inclusive of shots that did not strike the suspect or not, but you get the idea. Heck, there are numerous accounts of singular warning shots being enough to convince a troubleamaker to cease the troublesome activities. Even more amazing is that are are accounts where a singular warning shot was able to cause a group of troublemakers to cease troublesome activities. So, you could have a OSS that does not actually harm anybody and yet stop the activities of many people.

So to conclude, OSSs do happen. They are supposedly based on real case data compiled under some unrealistic data selection criteria. They are an interesting historical compilation of performance, but so mired in various biases that the value really stops at being an interesting historical complilation. Since each fired round is a unique event, it is unreasonable to believe that historical performance will necessarily be duplicated by any given shot.

[Vern Humphrey]

That's a matter of degree. It depends on how well you shoot the .22 and how badly you shoot the .45. I think everyone agrees that a hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .45. But, again, that's a comparison that does no one any good. People are not out there trying to make the decision between carrying a 22 and carrying a 45. There might be people trying to choose between a 22 and a 25, or a 40 and a 45, but a 22 vs a 45? Not very likely at all. As before, resorting to the extreme case provides an answer that is essentially useless.

Not really -- it tells you where to look for answers, and gives you a decision point.

For example, if we can demonstrate that bigger is better in extreme cases, then in close cases, we would use that as a tie-breaker.

If the extreme case comparison is actually proof for the bigger is better argument (as it applies to comparing calibers within a performance class), if it really is valuable, it MUST come along with a method to show how the extreme case scales to the trivial case. And there isn't any such method. There just isn't.


Not necessarily. There are many things we cannot quantify, but can nevertheless use to make decisions.

However if I were going to do a study on this issues, I would first of all look to actual shootouts and ask "What do the winners use? Is there a particular weapon, caliber and cartridge that is significantly represented amongst the winners?"

If there were, that would point us in the right direction -- the next question would be "why?"

[Kurush]

Sorry Kurush, based on your statement above, but I think you were unaware of what a statistical analysis can and cannot do. Statistical analyses do not actually prove anything. They simply give a probability.I am well aware of how statistics work. The statisticians in question applied a statistical test to the data and found that it deviated substantially from the expected distributions. The same technique was used to uncover a physicist who was faking experimental data not long ago. In science, no hypothesis can be proved in the mathematical sense of proving a theorem. In common usage, when the data shows that:

Dr. Carroll Peters, Professor of Engineering at the University of Tennessee calculated the probability that they could be true to be one in ten to the twentieth power (1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)It is said to be proved.

Did you read the article, Kurush?
Did you try to understand it :rolleyes:
Go back and read the section called "The Myth." The myth has nothing to do with one shot stops, but the unrealistically high amount of bad guys dropped by singular shots.Is this a joke? That's exactly what the article is about, the title itself says that the myth is "one shot drops". Are you claiming that there is a difference between the term "one shot drop" and "one shot stop"?

The fact that it did not single out Marshall & Sanow is immaterial. The point of the article is that someone who believes their gun has a very high probability of stopping with one shot will stop firing before the aggressor stops, and get killed. Whether they believe that because they watch too many movies or because they read fake statistics is irrelevant.

.45 acp Hydrashok may be reported to have a 96% OSS historical rating, but that has no bearing what will happen if the gun store commando shoots somebody. Historical data do not determine or influence future events.Your argument defeats itself. If one shot stop "statistics" are not predictive, they are unscientific and useless.

the reality is that OSS is a mishmash of physical incapacitations and simple behavior modification.Psychological incapacitation is not a reliable mechanism for self defense. Bullets usually cause very little pain, and a determined attacker or one who's high on drugs can and will continue attacking even with disabling and mortal wounds. Furthermore, it is grossly implausible that you could find any correlation between bullet mass or caliber (in handguns) and psychological effects.

(edited some for clarity)

[JohnKSa]

For example, if we can demonstrate that bigger is better in extreme cases, then in close cases, we would use that as a tie-breaker.You could--or you could say that it's the energy that makes the difference in extreme cases and use energy as the tie-breaker. The point about the extreme case is that there's a huge difference in nearly any parameter you choose to measure. You can't just pick ONE parameter, scale the comparison back to a nearly trivial case and have any basis for saying that the single parameter you picked (essentially at random) is the one that's important when the difference is picayune.There are many things we cannot quantify, but can nevertheless use to make decisions.Those are called religious beliefs. ;) Ok, that's pushing it a bit, but you get the point. Belief without evidence is fine, but only if that's how you sell it. You can't couch opinion or faith as fact to a non-believer and expect to make any headway.Is there a particular weapon, caliber and cartridge that is significantly represented amongst the winners?"FBI did a study awhile back on exactly this topic. Their conclusion was that the issue pistols currently in use by U.S. LE are all effective. The difference between the winners and the losers was attitude, skill and training--NOT the firearm or caliber they were carrying. TFL search is sick right now. When it gets better, I'll post a link to the article.

[gunfan]

We were at a Q&A session a couple weeks ago with a deputy district attorney, part of the CCW training here, to learn about the legalities of self defense.

Anyway, the deputy, Steve Fieldman, has been with the DA's office for over 20 years, and investigated a lot of crimes, so he does have some experience in these matters.

He said: "No matter what you've seen on TV or in the movies, the person shot does NOT fly backwards or even stop at the shot, even with a shotgun. If someone is charging you from 20 feet away, and you shoot him three times with your .45, he will still be coming at you. He may be dead at the first shot, but his momentum will continue carrying him toward you, and he will still have a few seconds of life left to do you great harm."

So I think the myth of the one shot stop is just that, a myth.

Amen! Shoot them until they stop threatening you!

End of discussion.

Scott

[AndrewM]

I think the deputy was saying exactly what you are saying, instead of he is already dead he should have said he will be dead in a few seconds, but in the meantime, he still can finish or continue his attack on you.

I once shot a pronghorn through the heart and both lungs at 100 yards or so, with a .270 Win 130 gr bullet. He hunched up and then walked another ten feet or so before he stuck his horns in the ground and flipped over. He just didn't know he was dead yet.

Anyway, having seen several big game animals hit in vital areas with major calibers, which continued to run and try to get away from the threat, I still think the one shot stop is a myth (and I'm not sure you were arguing that point).

I was on the jury for a murder trial, the victim in this case was shot with a 9mm at close range (5-6ft), he than leaped out a window and ran another 60-75ft before collapsing. He was shot through the heart (nothing like autopsy photo's after lunch), it took a good 30 seconds for him to collapse.

Andrew

[Vern Humphrey]

You could--or you could say that it's the energy that makes the difference in extreme cases and use energy as the tie-breaker. The point about the extreme case is that there's a huge difference in nearly any parameter you choose to measure. You can't just pick ONE parameter, scale the comparison back to a nearly trivial case and have any basis for saying that the single parameter you picked (essentially at random) is the one that's important when the difference is picayune.Those are called religious beliefs. ;) Ok, that's pushing it a bit, but you get the point. Belief without evidence is fine, but only if that's how you sell it. You can't couch opinion or faith as fact to a non-believer and expect to make any headway.FBI did a study awhile back on exactly this topic. Their conclusion was that the issue pistols currently in use by U.S. LE are all effective. The difference between the winners and the losers was attitude, skill and training--NOT the firearm or caliber they were carrying. TFL search is sick right now. When it gets better, I'll post a link to the article.

Oh, everything you say is true.

But let's design a defensive cartridge, based on terminal ballistics only.

Should we go with a .40 or .45? We can't measure the difference in terminal effect between .40 and .45. But extreme cases say larger is better.

Should we go with FMJ or a hollowpoint? We really can't measure the difference in terminal effect between FMJ and hollowpoints. We can set up tests, but how do we validate them? But extreme cases say hollowpoints are better.

Should we go with a 3" barrel or a 5"? We can't measure the difference in terminal effect between those barrel lengths. But extreme cases say longer is better.

Should we go with +P or standard? We can't measure the difference in terminal effect between +P or standard. But extreme cases say boosting velocity and energy is better.

Now we have designed two cartridges -- a .40 standard load in FMJ out of a 3" barrel, and a .45 ACP +P hollowpoint out of a 5" barrel.

And we may well be able to measure which is best by keeping track of actual shootings. No one element is proveably more effective, but the sum of our decisions is another matter.

[Vern Humphrey]

There is a reason why fmj bullets are illegal for taking big game, and why the softpoints show much more tissue damage, blood loss and shock. The larger cases permit you to load more powder.

Are we talking about cases or about bullets? How does changing to a softpoint bullet increase case capacity?


More powder is necessary to get more velocity. The 223 softpoint has the same momentum and 1/4 the "frontal area" of .45 ball ammo. However, the 223 sp knocks big dogs ( 80+ lbs) on their butts with chest hits, and .45 ball ammo does nothing of the kind. Contrary to what the ignorant claim, we most certainly can get service handgun bullets to the sort of speed (ie, 2400 fps or so) that the 223 still has at 100 yds (where it still knocks over those big dogs).

We're not comparing rifles with handguns -- we're comparing cartridges with others in the same class.

Now, it's difficult to prove by actual measurement that a hollowpoint in, say .45 ACP is "better" than FMJ. We don't have accurate data from actual shootings (and much of what we have is contaminated.) But we can look at extreme cases and say, it OUGHT to be better, even if we can't measure it.

[Vern Humphrey]

performance in flesh is performance in flesh.


But we don't have enough reliable data to tell us what the performance in flesh is between, say a .38 Special and a 9mm.

Velocity is velocity, whether from rifle or pistol.

Again, we don't have enough reliable data to tell us what the performance in flesh is between, say a .38 Special and a 9mm.

If you can get the same performance from a pistol (at defensive pistol ranges, ie, 30 ft and less) as the 223 gets at 100 yds, you can reliably expect the same performance as the 223 sp has on critters at that distance. Which is to say, it's very, very much more impressive than .45 ball ammo.

But we're not comparing a hypothetical pistol with .223 velocity to a .45. We're comparing the .38 Special with the 9mm, and the .45 with the .40 S&W.

[Vern Humphrey]

we CAN get such info, by shooting animals, as I said.

Live animal tests, even when done, don't allow us to definitively state that the .38 Special is better or worse than the 9mm.

we can also get the 2400 fps velocity in a service pistol. Even without fully supported barrels, stronger cases,and today's powders, THV got 60 gr .45 ACP bullets to 2300 fps, 25 years ago. Obviously, you don't know that to be the case.

Don't know what to be the case? That there have been various experimental loads in the .45 ACP? Or that the .45 ACP has been necked down to as small as .22? Or that all sorts of wonder bullets have been tried -- including jacketed wood bullets weighing around 60 grains?

[JohnKSa]

But let's design a defensive cartridge, based on terminal ballistics only.But you DIDN'T design it based only on terminal ballistics. Or you would have gone to the legal limit of diameter for a handgun (.50 cal) and would have gone to the longest barrel that was feasible--maybe 8 or even 10 inches. And rather than bothering with +P, you'd have gone to the highest velocity and bullet weight that the average person could hold onto while firing.

In short, you would have designed a .500 S&W Magnum or maybe something a little more powerful.

The reason you didn't do that is because capacity, shootability and portability also play MAJOR parts in the selection of a defensive round.

You CAN'T design for terminal ballistics alone.

One must consider the practical size limitations of the firearm because it will need to be easily carried--maybe even concealed.

One should maximize capacity within reason realizing that a defensive scenario may involve more than one attacker.

One should maximize the shootability of the cartridge within reason realizing that multiple accurate and rapid shots may be necessary to end an attack.

All of those things and more will limit your terminal ballistics. ESPECIALLY--since it has been repeatedly shown that:

1. Having a gun is critical to surviving a violent attack.
2. Having more rounds can make the difference between surviving and dying.
3. Shot placement is possibly the most important variable in the survival equation.

WHILE--and this is CRITICAL--while it has NOT been shown that minor differences in terminal ballistics (such as the differences between calibers within a performance class) have ANY significant effect on the outcome of a handgun defense scenario.

It's completely unreasonable to design for terminal ballistics alone because that, out of all the parameters in a gunfight, has been shown to be the LEAST important factor. (Given our standard disclaimer about comparing calibers within a general perfomance class.)

One doesn't begin a design spec with the least important factor and work upward in imprtance. Just the reverse. It would be FAR more reasonable to begin with size, shootability, and capacity as the primary design goals and then try to maximize terminal ballistics within the framework that the primary design goals dictate. (Again, staying within a general performance class).

[Vern Humphrey]

But you DIDN'T design it based only on terminal ballistics.

Yes I did -- but I stayed within the rules, which was class-with-class.

[JohnKSa]

Ok, point taken.

But that still doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make sense to design for terminal ballistics as a primary requirement when it CAN'T be shown to have a significant effect.

One should start with the requirements that CAN be shown to make a difference and then work downward to the ones that can't be scientifically shown to be significant.

[Lucky]

I think that if you get hit in the hip you stop. Something about the pelvis being like the keystone of a bridge. If it breaks you can't physically stay up.

And when a bullet passes through or close past the spinal column (with enough velocity to make a good wave) then the person loses all control, and will fall.

Discussing this and one person said, "Hey, that happened to me!" Turns out he was paintballing, and was shot in the back at close range, directly on the column. Collapsed without control, temporarily.

About momentum carrying you forward, ehhh I dunno. It would carry you forward, but gravity would carry you downward. Essentially it's 'timberrr', hit or spinal damage doesn't allow you to take one more step.

[nyresq]

no one ever fires one shot.... unless they only have one bullet.:rolleyes:



Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang thud... Bang Bang click...chick-chick ...Bang Bang Bang Bang... "dude I think he's dead"... "yea, I know"... Bang Bang Bang click.... "crap, I'm out!!!"

:D :D

[Vern Humphrey]

Ok, point taken.

But that still doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make sense to design for terminal ballistics as a primary requirement when it CAN'T be shown to have a significant effect.

One should start with the requirements that CAN be shown to make a difference and then work downward to the ones that can't be scientifically shown to be significant.

You're not wrong. But my point is that you can get a measurable effect by adding things that themselves make too small a contribution to be measured in isolation.

And the way we idenify those things is to look at extremes -- comparing a very low velocity round versus a very high velocity round tells us that added velocity should have a positive effect -- even if we can't measure the effect when we go from, say 850fps to 950 fps.

[R.H. Lee]

I'd trust a .22lr in the head before anything else COM for a 'one shot stop'.

[Vern Humphrey]

I'd trust a .22lr in the head before anything else COM for a 'one shot stop'.

Sure. But can you trust yourself to be enough better than the guy who you go up against (remembering that he is the aggressor and initiates the action) to put a .22LR in his head before he puts a .45 ACP or .357 in your COM?

[R.H. Lee]

Sure. But can you trust yourself to be enough better than the guy who you go up against (remembering that he is the aggressor and initiates the action) to put a .22LR in his head before he puts a .45 ACP or .357 in your COM? Good point, but it's outside of the theoretical 'one shot stop' argument. Of course you're going to keep shooting until the threat stops. The primary goal all the while is to not get shot.

[Vern Humphrey]

Good point, but it's outside of the theoretical 'one shot stop' argument. Of course you're going to keep shooting until the threat stops. The primary goal all the while is to not get shot.

I keep thinking about a certain gun writer who praised a S&W super-lightweight .22 LR as a defensive gun, saying you could "put one in his tear duct."

There was a picture of this writer with the article, and I looked at it and thought, "He, whoever 'he' is has a much bigger target to shoot at.":what:

[JohnKSa]

But my point is that you can get a measurable effect by adding things that themselves make too small a contribution to be measured in isolation.
...even if we can't measure the effect when we go from, say 850fps to 950 fps.However, the gestalt of all the parameters you advocated still doesn't result in a measurable effect on the attacker while they do result in a measurable increase of recoil, a loss of weapon capacity for a given size and probably adversely affect the overall size of the handgun.

You've penalized the user of your design in two--perhaps three critical areas but by your own admission have given him nothing measurable where it counts.

Now, if the changes you suggested could be made without affecting any other design parameters of the resulting firearm, that would be one thing. But that's not the case. It's had a directly negative effect on other design parameters, and not only that, on design parameters that can be shown to actually make a difference in the final outcome of a defensive scenario.

Clearly there is a large group of people who share a strong belief--they are happily willing to forego signficant and measurable advantages in a defensive scenario because of their belief that the measurable disadvantages they are incurring will be more than cancelled by an effect that they can find no hard evidence to support and which they admit is not measurable. To my mind, that is a very poor tradeoff.

It may not be a majority position, but I choose to rely more heavily on the parameters that EVERYONE agrees have a measurable positive impact and refuse to significantly handicap myself by choosing a handgun which has been designed to exploit parameters which MAY be helpful but can't be shown to have a direct positive impact.

Standard disclaimer about operating within a given performance class, blah, blah... ;)

[BluesBear]

It always makes me laugh to see one person use information from a single source in an attempt to discredit the findings from yet another single source.

Especialy when the discrediting information comes from someone engaging in a long standing personal vandetta against the original findings.

All it ends up being is a He Said/He Said urinals at 20 paces contest.
And another name on the twit list.


The One Shot Stop is a concept, a dream. It is not a reality.
When it does occur using any form of small arms (and especially when using a handgun), it is more a matter of luck or happenstance than anything else.

[owsi26]

I was a true-blue .45 man for self-defense. Now I'm a 10mm convert. At least for home defense. Glock makes a small 10mm but boy is it heavy. So for now, .45 and .40 are my carry calibers but the following story makes me wonder if I should start carrying a RPG!

I read in a gun magazine about a cop that had a bad guy approaching him with knife in hand. The bad guy kept coming despite warnings that he was going to get shot. The cop then shot, and shot again. The guy took six bullets to the chest before he dropped the knife. He DID NOT fall down even then.

The bad guy lived and said the bullets felt like bee stings, big deal to him. The article didn't say if he was high on drugs but that really got me to thinking. I don't know if the same thing couldn't happen with 10mm too but a head shot would be appropriate after a few chest shots, I would think!

It also brings up for discussion how much spare ammo one should carry. The Glock 36, (.45) that I often carry holds 6 in the magazine. I added a Pierce one round extension so I know carry 7 in the magazine. But I think at least one extra magazine is in order after reading this story!

[Vern Humphrey]

However, the gestalt of all the parameters you advocated still doesn't result in a measurable effect on the attacker while they do result in a measurable increase of recoil, a loss of weapon capacity for a given size and probably adversely affect the overall size of the handgun.


If what you say is true, then ball ammuntion should be as good as hollowpoints and so on. And we know that isn't the case.

[owsi26]

A few more things that I read relating to this subject:

In WWII, it took an average of 6 shots from a 9mm firearm to put the enemy on the ground. Not dead, but on the ground.

If someone is shot in the heart, they are able to remain conscious and return fire for 20 seconds. How many rounds can you fire in 20 seconds? Personally, I could easily empty at least two full magazines in that time.

BUT I came to the conclusion that I would fire several center mass shots, then try for a head shot. And that any gun is better than no gun.

[AndrewM]

I read in a gun magazine about a cop that had a bad guy approaching him with knife in hand. The bad guy kept coming despite warnings that he was going to get shot. The cop then shot, and shot again. The guy took six bullets to the chest before he dropped the knife. He DID NOT fall down even then.

That happens a lot more often than you think. Hnadguns suck for stopping power. Pure and simple, the survival rate for gun shot wounds is very high when it comes from a handgun. There just isn't enough disruption to cause a good "stop", if you shoot somebodies chest full of JHP, the BG may bleed out in a matter of seconds, but he's still a danger until that happens, you can empty a magazine into somebodies pelvis region and completely destroy any chance of the person walking, but BG can still pick up a weapon and use it against you, etc, etc. Head shots will almost always work (but not always), but the head is a much smaller target than the body and moves very quickly.

Andrew

[MLH]

Maybe an engineer can help me design this and we'll go into business together. It's a handgun that fires six pound sledgehammers at four thousand feet per second. Anything less than that, I'm shooting again.
Now that's one handgun I don't want to shoot! Ouch!:what:

[1557]

A Police captain here shot a man a few weeks ago when responding to a domestic call. When he pulled up and exited his patrol car ,the resident came at him with a machete.
The attacker tuirned sideways at the instant the officer fired and the bullet went completely thru,entering one side and exiting the other.
The officer told me was going to do a double tap but the attacker fell down so fast,he couldn't get off the second shot.
I know this to be the facts. One shots stops do occur,but I don't believe there is any reliable way to even begin to predict when they will occur. The weapon was a Glock 22, didn't ask about the load.
Don't count on getting the one shot stop when you need it tho,regardless of what you use. By the way,no vital organs were hit and the man survived,but was under guard in the hospital for a while.
Keep shootin' 'til they drop.

[Mongo the Mutterer]

CCW Instructor Question = "When do you stop shooting?"

Mongo Answer = "When the slide locks"

Guy behind Mongo adds = "and then I slap in another magazine..."


Steps:

1. Aim, fire

2. repeat 1

[AndrewM]

I know this to be the facts. One shots stops do occur,but I don't believe there is any reliable way to even begin to predict when they will occur. The weapon was a Glock 22, didn't ask about the load.
Don't count on getting the one shot stop when you need it tho,regardless of what you use. By the way,no vital organs were hit and the man survived,but was under guard in the hospital for a while.
Keep shootin' 'til they drop.

You have to seperate "one shot stop" into the people who stopped because they are shot, realize it and come to the realization that they should stop being a threat. And the one-shot-stop that will truly incapacitate a person. There are plenty of incidents out there similiar to what you heard, somebody get's shot, and stops doing whatever it is they are doing by their own choice. But that person could have just as easily kept on being a threat.

[1557]

You have to seperate "one shot stop" into the people who stopped because they are shot, realize it and come to the realization that they should stop being a threat. And the one-shot-stop that will truly incapacitate a person. There are plenty of incidents out there similiar to what you heard, somebody get's shot, and stops doing whatever it is they are doing by their own choice. But that person could have just as easily kept on being a threat. That's absolutely right,and as stated I don't believe there is any reliable way to predict either. Some loads work better than others most of the time,but either way it's a coin toss. Shoot 'til they drop.

[George Hill]

It's not so much the number of rounds you fire, but the number of hits you actually make into the target's vitals.
:banghead:

[JohnKSa]

If what you say is true, then ball ammuntion should be as good as hollowpoints and so on. And we know that isn't the case.Well, I'm not arguing that you can compare target ammo to premium self-defense ammunition and get good results. I thought we were comparing terminal performance of handguns within a given performance class. Not ball to hp ammo.

Clearly, it's possible to handicap oneself by a poor choice of ammunition regardless of the performance class of your handgun.

If you want to extend the discussion to ammunition considerations then I would make the statement that within a given performance class ball ammo should provide similar results across the board (comparing handguns all using ball ammo within a performance class). Likewise, if the performance is compared across the board with premium self-defense ammunition, results within the class would be virtually identical.It's not so much the number of rounds you fire, but the number of hits you actually make into the target's vitals.Precisely. And given the fact that shooting performance (hit rate) deteriorates dramatically when a person is under stress, it's critical that a person have as many chances as possible to make a hit to the vitals. ;)

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Okay, George...

not in combat, in the range...

15 yard, 3" circle, 15 rounds, in the circle, 3 seconds...

No brag, fact. Probably a very good day (aaaah, hell with it, it WAS a very good day) but it works for me.

Could I do it in a BG, Gremlin, whatever situation. You bet your ass!

[Vern Humphrey]

Well, I'm not arguing that you can compare target ammo to premium self-defense ammunition and get good results. I thought we were comparing terminal performance of handguns within a given performance class.

You're correct. But the issue I'm addressing is the adding of things which individually have too small an effect to measure, but which in aggregation make a difference.

For example if we take extreme cases (say .22 to .458) we can show increasing caliber makes a difference. But between .40 S&W and .45 ACP the difference is too small to measure (or to detect a difference in real-world shootings.) But the probability is there is a difference -- we just can't measure it.

Again, we can't measure the (probably) increased effectiveness of hollowpoints versus ball (we had someone earlier point that out), nor of +P versus normal, or of a 5" barrel versus a 3" barrel.

But if we stack all the probable increased effectiveness on one side, and compare it to the other side, we can see a difference.

[JohnKSa]

difference is too small to measureThen that's not a difference you should be concerned with--pretty straighforward.But if we stack all the probable increased effectiveness on one side, and compare it to the other side, we can see a difference.If that were true, then this debate would have ended long ago and every handgun effectiveness thread would end with a link to the proof.

And the fact remains that even if there IS a difference, it's so small that we're using words like theoretical, probable, and talking about summing lots of these differences to try to get something might be detectable.

On the other hand the COSTS of getting these minimal effects are significant, easily detectable, universally accepted and negative.

[BluesBear]

Could I do it in a BG, Gremlin, whatever situation. You bet your ass! No you're the one betting your ass.
My ass has already survived more than once.

Now, if we were betting money I'd take that bet. (so would anyone who has been there and done that)
Because when the balloon goes up your entire world will change.
And that's a fact Jack. Don't kid yourself that it isn't.

You need a reality check but I pray that you don't actually get it.

[BluesBear]

Now you'd think a .40S&W shot into an 8 pound housecat would be a one shot stop wouldn't you?
As the constable entered the home, the cat ran up the stairs and stared the officer down.

Speaking to The Intelligencer on condition of anonymity, the constable said he had “ ... never seen an animal act like that before — it was like it was possessed or something, hissing and growling.”

The officer shot the cat square in the chest with his Beretta .40-calibre handgun.

“Even after he shot it, that cat was so hopped up — we’re talking about a little, eight-pound cat — Mickey ran down the hall into the bathroom and jumped into the tub,” the husband recollected. “He didn’t die for at least five minutes ... he was all nerves and adrenaline ... he wasn’t in his right mind.”

Belleville Intelligencer (http://www.intelligencer.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=98953&catname=Local%20News)

[Mongo the Mutterer]

You need a reality check but I pray that you don't actually get it.Me too. Thanks, Blues.

Been in a few messes, but not the fatal kind, as you surmised. God bless.

[Vern Humphrey]

Then that's not a difference you should be concerned with--pretty straighforward.If that were true, then this debate would have ended long ago and every handgun effectiveness thread would end with a link to the proof.

No. As I pointed out, by stacking those things we cannot measure, but which should make a difference, we can produce an end product that is measurably superior.

And the fact remains that even if there IS a difference, it's so small that we're using words like theoretical, probable, and talking about summing lots of these differences to try to get something might be detectable.

On the other hand the COSTS of getting these minimal effects are significant, easily detectable, universally accepted and negative.[/QUOTE]

So we should go with smaller calibers, ball ammo, in short barrels?

[JohnKSa]

As I pointed out, by stacking those things we cannot measure, but which should make a difference, we can produce an end product that is measurably superior.It's not measurably superior or the debate wouldn't continue. It's as simple as that. If it were measurably superior then that measurable superiority would have ended the debate long ago.So we should go with smaller calibers, ball ammo, in short barrels?Ok, I'll respond ignoring the fact that this is a somewhat obvious attempt to overstate the premise in an attempt to make it appear ridiculous. ;)

Ball ammo: Unless you can come up with a significant reason NOT to use premium HP ammo in modern firearms then I don't see why you wouldn't want to use HP. Personally, I don't see the relevance of ball vs HP to a discussion of caliber performance differences, but whatever...

Short barrels: Longer barrels offer more sight radius and therefore improve shootability so I think there's sufficient reason to try for a balance here.

Smaller calibers: I would say that shootability and capacity are the goals while staying within a performance class. All other things being equal, going smaller in caliber doesn't always mean more shootability (there's more to recoil/muzzle flip/shot recovery time than muzzle diameter) though it almost always improves capacity.