Evan Marshall versus firearmstactical.com


PDA






Koblenz
August 8, 2007, 08:18 PM
I have noticed that there are two opposing schools of thought on what type of handgun ammuntion has the best stopping power. One is lead by Evan Marshall, who examines shooting statistics and often finds that the higher velocity/lighter bullet loads have the best stopping power. The other school of thought, which I have encountered on the firearmstactical website, says that the heaviest bullet loads, like 147 grain in 9mm, and 180 grain in .40, have the best stopping power.

I don't know which side is right. I have read a bit on Evan Marshall's stopping power website, and also some on the firearmstactical website, and both make sense to me in their arguements.

Would anyone care to say which side you think is right, and why?

If you enjoyed reading about "Evan Marshall versus firearmstactical.com" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AZAndy
August 8, 2007, 08:33 PM
You know, it's funny how different studies can yield different statistics. I keep seeing the .45 230gr as having something like a 95% chance of a one-stop shot (which is different, I must mention, from one-stop shopping).

As for myself, the caliber I'm carrying depends on the weather (.45 when I can hide it under garb appropriate to cooler weather, smaller when it's hotter). A .380 or 9x18 only gives around a 50% chance of a one-shot stop, but I'm perfectly prepared to fire several times if necessary. :-)

A.

336A
August 8, 2007, 08:41 PM
Here is a good article to read on this subject. My opinions on this subject are the same as the author of the article.

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Have%20No%20Faith.htm

1 old 0311
August 8, 2007, 09:06 PM
I buy chaeap ammo and practice a lot. May take 2-3 shots, but I WILL hit what I aim at.

denfoote
August 8, 2007, 09:21 PM
This is going to be worse than flogging a deceased equine!! ;)

This will explode into full nuclear exchange, quickly!!! :eek:

Git that bomb shelter open pronto, Ma!!
The nukes are on the way!! :what:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/denfoote/bwsmall.jpg


:evil: :evil:

dfariswheel
August 8, 2007, 09:28 PM
The Truth is, when dealing with Premium American made defense ammo, there is not enough difference between them to reliably select "the best" load.

Truth is, there IS no "best load".
One test will rate a particular brand/type of ammo a couple of percentage points over something else, and the next test shows something else a percent point or two over others.

About 15 to 20 years ago, American ammunition makers under went a great "sea change" in bullet design.
Prior to this, you had the choice of lead bullets or jacketed bullets.
Some jacketed bullets had exposed lead tips, and some even had holes in the nose.

Under pressure from American law enforcement to come up with more effective ammo, the ammo makers were faced with the seemingly impossible demand for bullets that would penetrate about 12 inches, reliably expand to a larger size, AND retain almost all the bullet weight without fragmenting.

To do that, the makers employed modern design and manufacturing techniques.
Prior to this bullets were either cast or swaged lead, or copper jackets with lead swaged into the jacket.
The new ammo uses manufacturing techniques that allow pre-stressed bullets that often employ internal folds or plated-on jackets that will penetrate deeply, stay in one piece, and still "mushroom" or expand.

Due to these new bullet designs that perform with reliable and repeatable results, premium American defense ammo is approaching the statistical limit as to what can be expected from a pistol.
In other words, the bullets are about as close to 100% reliable as we can get with current technology.

It's no secret that the world's police and military anti-terrorism forces use American defense ammo almost to the exclusion to any made anywhere else.
This is because of the revolution in bullet design that's on-going here.

In short, looking for "the best" defense ammo is an exercise in futility. Save the effort for more important things, and just select any Premium American defense ammo that's reliable in YOUR specific gun.
Reliability it THE most important issue, with accuracy a distant second, at best.

Whatever premium defense ammo you pick will perform with the margin of error of any other premium ammo.

Gord
August 8, 2007, 09:34 PM
No firearm - especially a handgun - can be counted on to reliably put down an attacker with any given number of shots, and certainly not one.

If you need to shoot, keep shootin' until they're down. There are no magic bullets, magic calibers or magic guns. There is only the volume of fire required, which will vary with each incident. You might need one round or ten of 9mm. You might need one round or ten of .45ACP. You might need one round or ten of .17HMR.

People are shot with 12-gauge buckshot and live.
People are shot with .22 and die instantly.

It's more about luck than anything else, unless you've got time to set up a shot and aim leisurely - in which case your life is not in immediate danger and you are not justified in shooting anyway.

CWL
August 8, 2007, 09:53 PM
Evan Marshall has tried to create a 'formula' for rating bullet performance ie. "one shot stop %".

Unfortunately, he (and his partner Sanow) are not trained in scientific statistical analysis. Their premise is full of holes because their stats do not take into account an endless list of variables from barrel length to total# bullets fired, let alone what kind of bodyshape/mass/size of target to actual wound location of bullet. Worst is that they have never shared the sources of their shoot data -leading many (including myself) to believe that much of it was fabricated.

On the other side of this contraversy are people like Dr. Martin Fackler, who was a surgical pathologist for the Army and has personally operated on battlefield injuries as well as conducted numerous autopsies of gunshot victims. Dr. Fackler has had direct support and access to both military wounding data as well as LE shooting data. Lastly, Dr. Fackler was one of the early proponents of using ballistic gelatin as a means to test bullet performance.

Which one are you going to believe?

Lone_Gunman
August 8, 2007, 10:16 PM
Marshall and Sanow's data is useless from a statistical standpoint. Also, they don't describe their methods, nor let anyone else evaluate their raw data. If they tried to present information like that in a scientific forum, they would be laughed out of town. Their data is also frequently published in gun rags that accept a lot of money from ammo manufacturers. This may or may not introduce bias into their results.

I tend to believe Martin Fackler. I would dispute whether or not he has actually operated on gunshot wound victims. He is a pathologist, and unless the Army is different from the real world, the only people pathologists operate on are already dead.

I would tell you though that Fackler's data correlates well with my experience as a surgeon.

Brian Williams
August 8, 2007, 10:24 PM
I am of both sides, fast and light in 9mm and slow and heavy in 45. I also like fast and heavy in 357mag, and slow and light in 41mag(if I had one.)


Also keep it civil or we will shut this down.

GunTech
August 8, 2007, 10:27 PM
Marshall and Sanows 'data' and methodology have been pretty much discredited. And the number of shooting they claim to have data for is statistically insignificant.

I was surprised to see no mention of Duncan McPherson's "Bullet Penetration". Perhaps because of the extremely technical nature or the work.

Jim March
August 8, 2007, 11:36 PM
Firearmstactical's webmaster and main supporters are proponents of Fackler's "penetration is the main thing" school of thought.

I mostly agree...mostly.

From everything I've read, my choice is to strongly prefer rounds that punch to 12" - 14" range AND expand. And as a bonus, pile on as much raw energy as possible :).

That's why I trust the very best 38+Ps in snubbies: the better grades of 158gr plain lead hollowpoints doing 850ish or better (Remmie or the standard pressure Buffbore for starters), the Speer Gold Dot 38+P 135gr, the Winnie Supreme 130+P in a pinch, a small number of others.

But given a choice (and the opportunity to carry more gun), I like the Gold Dot 125gr "high speed" 357 slug pushed to 1,500+ as loaded by Buffbore or Doubletap. I think those are some of the most hardcore brutal handgun loads for personal defense ever thunk up. I blew up a bowling ball with one, split it in half violently and sent fist-size pieces of concrete core 20+ feet. It's about 800ft/lbs energy. Gel tests say they dump that energy into less than 14" and being Gold Dots with bonded jackets, they don't come apart (much, anyways). If there's one round I wouldn't want to be shot with, that's it, and in some ways it doesn't follow Fackler's thinking...it COULD penetrate a LOT deeper with that much energy on tap, instead the energy goes into expansion and wound channel...with enough punch left over to make Facklerites (barely) happy, which is why you don't see 'em dissin' this load.

---

What I really want to do is send a 140gr at that speed...I think it can be done easily in either 356GNR or 38/44B&D, even in a modified New Vaquero cylinder. Get some of the reloader-supply 140gr all-copper Barnes, load 'em that way, you'd have one serious rocker of a load.

Chrome
August 9, 2007, 12:13 AM
I'm from the school of thought that no one wants to get shot and auto-loaders were invented for a reason. ;)

Later,
Chrome...

ilcylic
August 9, 2007, 12:20 AM
Frankly, I think I like 1 old 0311's answer best. :)

My personal thought on the "bullet war".

Some people like heavy and slow. Some people like light and fast. Personally, I'll take heavy and fast.

10mm by Doubletap is what I load into my magazines.

Autolycus
August 9, 2007, 12:26 AM
I prefer the .40 S&W as it is right in the middle. Good capacity and larger bullets than 9mm.

Deaf Smith
August 9, 2007, 12:31 AM
A while back David Spaulding, a LEO and gun writer, wrote that from the many videos of real shootings he has seen that the is SOME difference in reaction between more powerful rounds and weaker ones. He said the amount of reaction (by those being shot) was noticable but not super dramatic.

So while I do feel the .45, other things being equal, is more likely to stop an assaliant than a 9mm (or .40, or .38, or...) it is not a magic bullet and it's only somewhat better.

The good thing about the .45 is you can pick just about any load and it's a good load for the street.
The .40s, .357 magnum, .357 Sig, etc... you can pick the middle to top loads and they are good loads for the street.
For such as 9mm and .38 Spl, you need to look at the top loads for good stopping power.

.22s, .32s, .380s... no choce but get the best load you can find and practice alot!

They will all work if you have good shot placement (and for such as .22s and .32s, excellent shot placement.) It's far more what you can do with what you have than what kind of gun or bullets you have.

Lone_Gunman
August 9, 2007, 01:51 AM
From everything I've read, my choice is to strongly prefer rounds that punch to 12" - 14" range AND expand. And as a bonus, pile on as much raw energy as possible

Lets say you get your 12-14" of penetration, and the bullet expands to 0.75 inches. That all sounds pretty good to me.

What do you think the bonus "raw energy" will add to this? At handgun velocities, the only significant effects of energy are to cause expansion and penetration. Beyond that, energy has no effect on tissure trauma until you get considerably faster than handguns.

XD Fan
August 9, 2007, 02:48 AM
A 9 mm on my left hip and a .45 on my right hip. Shoot'm both to slide lock.:evil:

Just kidding.

choochboost
August 9, 2007, 03:21 AM
The Firearms Tactical website is not maintained so the info is not the most current. About what "side" I am on, I would say Firearms Tactical's and those of the same school of thought. Why? Because they seem to invite scrutiny of their findings and their conclusions seem much more credible than M&S.

It's not as simple as light and fast vs. heavy and slow, but more specificially about what rounds are more likely to penetrate deeply, expand reliably, retain weight, etc. There are loads that are recommended by the Firearms Tactical crowd that some would consider light and fast.

GunTech
August 9, 2007, 10:18 AM
Lone_Gunman is dead right. Studies posted in SIPRI's 'antipersonnel weapons' suggest that 'hydrostatic shock' doesn't become a factor until velocities on the order of 600 m/s are reached. Whether you believe in the effect of temporary cavities, they are minimal at handgun velocities. Your best best is poking holes in something important.

Koblenz
August 9, 2007, 10:35 AM
So I gather the consensus on Marshall is that his methodology is flawed, plus nowadays the top brands of ammunition are all good so it doesn't much matter which one you pick.

MCgunner
August 9, 2007, 10:38 AM
I refuse to care what anyone else thinks on this subject anymore. Me, I choose the platform I chose for other reasons than "stopping power" OR big bullet. My personal minimum caliber limit for self defense is .380 and I would prefer .38 special or 9mm and up. I don't think there's a dimes difference in 9mm plus P from outfits like Corbon and a .45 in its best loadings and Marshall seems to agree with me if you look at his stats. If you hit center mass, a few times, either will work to stop the fight. I carry the 9 because it comes in a 14 ounce, 13 shot platform and fits in a pocket and is a gun I can hit with even at 25 yards if need be. That right there is far more important to me. Wear your 40 ounce gun every day all day if you want to and delude yourself that one shot is going to do the job better because the bullet is .1" more diameter. I frankly don't care because I carry what I carry because I like it and it ain't yours and you didn't pay for it and you don't have to rely on it. I practice and I plan on outshooting the BG anyway. I'm not going to rely on the caliber, I'm going to rely on my skills which are pretty decent at this point even if I'd have to practice 100,000 rounds a year for another fifty years just to polish Jerry Miculeks boots.

My normal carry battery consists of a .380, a 9x19 (have a service sized one, but don't carry it), .38 Special snub, and .357 magnum. I have a .45 I can carry IWB, but why bother when the .357 is a lot easier to carry? I'll take .357 at 550 ft lbs and 1335 fps about and in a compact gun to a full size .45 any day. My .357 is very shootable, an SP101. I love shooting that P90 in .45, just ain't a real practical carry, though I prefer it to any 1911.

mightyike
August 9, 2007, 10:41 AM
As a surgeon:

Nothing beats close range high velocity.
I've taken care of a person shot 6 times at point blank range from a Ruger Blackhawk 44 magnum.....the man on the floor was rolling around and not one bullet hit a bone or vital organ, one was close, tore out his sternocleidomastoid muscle and exposed the great neck vessels but no other major trauma. I have taken care of a person shot point blank with a 38 special in the mouth and the lead bullet impacted on a molar, not penetrating the skull but knocking the victim out to leave the shooter with the impression that the man was dead...

There is a big population of arm chair shootists and desperado's telling you what to do....
buy a reliable and power-enough handgun that you can shoot. Practice if you can. Purchase any good quality expanding ammo, I prefer the higher velocity because I have taken care of many high velocity wounds (but always remember-high velocity is a term that means about 1500 fps....most handguns do not approach that nor impact at that velocity) and hope you never have to use a gun to kill someone. It's not a movie or Rambo or TV, it's real. Practice practice practice. Point shoot point shoot point shoot....Evan Marshall is very intelligent and experienced. There are always stories as above, I have many many more, but they are only anecdotal.

mavracer
August 9, 2007, 10:50 AM
What do you think the bonus "raw energy" will add to this? At handgun velocities, the only significant effects of energy are to cause expansion and penetration. Beyond that, energy has no effect on tissure trauma until you get considerably faster than handguns.
not trying to start an argument but full house 357 and 10mm start to get into the area where hydrostatic starts working. maybe not much of a factor and they have some drawbacks(muzzle blast and flash) but they do work better than 38s and 9mm.IMHO 45acp is a perfect blend of punch a big hole while not blinding and deafining you.And while I'll carry anything a 45 lives in my nightstand.

MCgunner
August 9, 2007, 10:58 AM
Want a big hole? Does a pretty good job on .300 lb hogs. Of course, a .385 grain Minie at 1300 fps ain't no .45ACP.

:D

http://imageigloo.com/images/6735PICT0167.JPG

Lone_Gunman
August 9, 2007, 11:22 AM
I think 1500 fps is a little low to be considered a high velocity wound. As a surgeon, I have not seen much additional tissue destruction from projectiles moving near that speed when compared to wounds from slower but larger caliber projectiles.

I don't know if anyone has established a velocity above which additional tissue trauma occurs related to energy, but I think from personal experience that the velocity is closer to 2000 fps than 1500 fps.

Dravur
August 9, 2007, 11:33 AM
I read on this site where some guy got shot 8 times with a 9mm and lived. Another person was shot with a .22 and died.

I honestly think it comes down to shot placement. Penetration is great, but what if the guy is 450 lbs? if it penetrates to blubber, not much chance of taking him down.

If you are involved in shooting a guy who is a string bean, then maybe it just overpenetrates, goes straight through and does not hit an organ.

I say, if you hit someone right the first time and all subsequent shots, you will do well, but if you are shooting through sides of flab, you prolly aint gonna hurt em too bad.

RandyB
August 9, 2007, 12:14 PM
My own thoughts on this is based upon the writting of both the 'high speed' vs. 'deep pentration' schools. Bullets damage by tissue they come in contact with. This can be agrivated by expansion, fragmentation, and strecthing of tissue by high speed overcoming the elasticity of the tissue. That being said I favor the bigger bullet weights based upon my hunting experience.
My .45 carried 230 grain bullets
My 9mm carries 124 & 147 rounds (summer vs. winter)
My .357- 180 JHP partition except in summer then 125 JHP.
My .38- 158 LHP

Harley Quinn
August 9, 2007, 12:38 PM
I honestly think it comes down to shot placement. Penetration is great, but what if the guy is 450 lbs? if it penetrates to blubber, not much chance of taking him down.
*******************

This is important, if you are shooting through some of the leather jackets and multiple clothing it is best to have a good penetrating round IMHO...

I have gone to the the 357 Sig. I like it. The 140 grain bullet skipping along at 1400 fps is good. But I also carry a 380 :uhoh: A 40 and a 9 :) Not all at once though. I've been know to have the 45 cal close too;)

Carried the 38 spl for decades, Hmmm

HQ

MontanaBighorn
August 9, 2007, 02:07 PM
i find value in both trains of thought, but i will not sacrifice weight for speed. ballistic performance is about probabilities. yes people have walked away from .44 magnum wounds and dropped dead instantly from .25 acp wounds but as a matter of probability the .44 magnum is by far superior. for this reason i can find value in M&S findings not as to draw a conclusion on what would happen, but as a rough guildeline for what should happen based on probabilities formed from past performance.

some believe simple energy matters most but i find that unrealistic. many loads of the .223 are far superior (in terms of simple energy) to the .44 magnum, yet i wouldnt even consider shooting a bear with .223, and i dont think most other folks would either despite the superior energy. there is a formula ive seen that calculates velocity, weight, and caliber and i feel it does a very fair job of representing expected ballistic performance.

MontanaBighorn
August 9, 2007, 02:14 PM
I honestly think it comes down to shot placement. Penetration is great, but what if the guy is 450 lbs? if it penetrates to blubber, not much chance of taking him down.this is exactly why you need penetration. shot placement without penetration is useless. shot placement is critical, but the bullet still must be able to do its job and penetrate to reach the vitals.

....unless by shot placement you were referencing head shots which in a defensive shooting isnt advisable. even with extensive training a head shot at typical defensive ranges can be quite difficult with adrenaline flowing. if you miss youve wasted a bullet that is now stray. only after several ineffective A zone hits would i ever attempt a head shot. i understand you didnt specifically mention this, im just throwing it in to cover that base in advance.

Lone_Gunman
August 9, 2007, 02:56 PM
I honestly think it comes down to shot placement.

I agree with that also. To some degree though, caliber, velocity, and energy can help make up for less than optimal shot placement.

For example, if you are shot in the heart, it probably won't matter too much if it was a 357 magnum or a 380. You are going to go down fairly quickly.

However, if the bullet misses the heart, and hits the aorta, its going to probably take longer to incapacitate the person. But a larger hole that penetrates through the aorta will cause the incapacitation to occur more quickly than a smaller hole that only penetrates one wall.

XDKingslayer
August 9, 2007, 04:46 PM
I don't care if something does have a 95% chance of a one stop shot. Chances are I'm going to empty the mag anyways.

Harley Quinn
August 9, 2007, 05:10 PM
some believe simple energy matters most but i find that unrealistic. many loads of the .223 are far superior (in terms of simple energy) to the .44 magnum, yet i wouldnt even consider shooting a bear with .223, and i dont think most other folks would either despite the superior energy. there is a formula ive seen that calculates velocity, weight, and caliber and i feel it does a very fair job of representing expected ballistic performance
*****************

I understand what you are saying but no 44 is going to punch through steel and 223 can. So I think Id take the 223 with solids and go for the bear at 100yds rather than the 44 mag.

Just my thought about that.

HQ

MontanaBighorn
August 9, 2007, 05:23 PM
I think Id take the 223 with solids and go for the bear at 100yds rather than the 44 mag.....save the last round for yourself sir, it will be much less painful that way. ;)

chieftain
August 9, 2007, 05:43 PM
THIS WHOLE PISSING CONTEST IS ABOUT APPLES AND ORANGES.

Flackler and the other jello murderers, were talking about killing.

Marshall was talking about stopping.

Yeah, I know killing someone will stop them. Eventually. I can make the killing shot, but the guy who is dying decides to kill me until he quits wasting oxygen. Doesn't do me a bit of good.

Fact is Flackler admitted he did not know what "stopped" folks 50% of the time. His supposition is that it was for psychological reasons, maybe.

Marshall was much less scientific. He stated his criteria for a definition of a stop and used the data to come up with some ideas. His data collection was not official and as such states up front that he would not give up his sources, so as to protect them from their own agencies.

So, if you think Marshall is a lying, don't believe him. Flackler is absolutely right about killing people. If your goal is to kill people use his data. You will be right at least half the time. His words, not mine.

I use my weapons to stop folks. So I make my decisions accordingly. By the way. They agree on rounds more often than you would think.

As to how much velocity is needed for "shock" to be a factor, I believe, don't know anything, that how much velocity needed is a function of Caliber and bullet shape/function (BC/Meplat/SD etc...). I base that on being in a whole lot of military firefights (Vietnam), being a Trauma ICU and later ER RN.

Go figure.

Fred

MCgunner
August 9, 2007, 05:55 PM
I don't know if anyone has established a velocity above which additional tissue trauma occurs related to energy, but I think from personal experience that the velocity is closer to 2000 fps than 1500 fps.

Where did Dr. Michael What'shisname, the physicist that was doing all the pressure wave studies and writing the paper, go? He claimed the pressure wave was linear in relationship to energy (vs velocity) and that there was no point in velocity at which suddenly something turned on, IIRC. He was a wealth of knowledge on the subject of pressure waves in wounding. He also said his studies showed there was definitely nerve shutdown possible due to pressure waves if not direct muscle or organ tissue destruction.

Courtney, that's his name! Dr. Michael Courtney. Anyway, that guy made a lot of sense to me putting together hunting experiences and wounding theory with the idea of pressure waves in tissue and he said his studies correlated statistically with Evan Marshalls statistics on STOPPING (not killing) power. He wrote some interesting stuff on this board. Maybe a search would bring some of it back up.

It's all theory, though. Reality is shot placement with a service caliber capable of being carried all day, 24 hours a day if necessary. If the gun is in your car when you need it, it does no good. So, carrying a cannon is not a real good option when you will get tired of the thing. A 14 ounce 9mm is so light, it's like part of the clothing.

Dean Speir
August 9, 2007, 05:58 PM
.

.

.

.

.

No firearm - especially a handgun - can be counted on to reliably put down an attacker with any given number of shots, and certainly not one. Just so… and the best encapsulation of this was told to me many years ago by one retired USMC CWO3, a man celebrated within a certain community for having killed more people than cancer: The more I see of this, the more convinced I am that nothing hand-held is a reliable stopper.
It's not as simple as light and fast vs. heavy and slow, but more specificially about what rounds are more likely to penetrate deeply, expand reliably, retain weight, etc. There are loads that are recommended by the Firearms Tactical crowd that some would consider light and fast. There is something of a third school on this, as exemplified by Amy Courtney and Michael Courtney (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0701268), and I like it because it brings science to the table without the vitriol and name-calling of the IWBA side… which is "represented" by Firearms Tactical, or Shawn Dodson who in adopting the Cooper-esque first person plural often gulls visitors into assuming that he's a gaggle of personages.

We've had several dialogues going with Michael Courtney (http://www.ambackforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=407615#407615) since February. What he and his associate have done with this contentious subject is most interesting, and worthy of consideration.

MCgunner
August 9, 2007, 06:03 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=292871&highlight=Courtney

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=290868&highlight=Courtney

A quick search of previous threads on this subject matter with Dr. Courtney's opinions and research. This guy has the most convincing arguments, scientific, not BS, that I've seen. He's not a medical doctor or coroner. I think the subject deserves study from a physicist, myself, but he has neurologists he quotes concerning effects of pressure waves on nerves, too.

Scorpiusdeus
August 9, 2007, 07:08 PM
If there was one size fits all answer here, there would only be one caliber a bullet manufactured. Cute little stories, junk science, and the lot mean little. You can be a combat vet, a surgeon, and priest for all I care, none of you will be there when I have to fire a weapon to defend myself or my family.

Here are a few actual facts.

All projectiles moving at rapid speed have the potential to take a life.

Missing someone with a handgun or rifle rarely results in them being killed.

Pick a round with a proven track record that you shoot well with and feeds in the platform you shoot best with.

mavracer
August 9, 2007, 08:18 PM
one thing marshal definatly shows no ammo is 100% also none is 0% so they all work, some to a different degree.I carry 32acp,9mm,38+p,357mag,10mm,45acp and occasionally 45 Colt or 44Mag.the BG is gonna choose what he gets shot with.

Harley Quinn
August 9, 2007, 09:39 PM
Well for all you that want the 44 over the 223 solid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.44_Magnum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

The thing is the right bullet in the 223, I'll have the 44 on my hip if he gets to close:D
Shoot him in the face and blind him with the powder burns:neener:

HQ

MCgunner
August 9, 2007, 09:43 PM
ROFL, guy hit in the face with a .44? The least of his worries are going to be powder burns. :D

Soybomb
August 10, 2007, 05:57 AM
. The other school of thought, which I have encountered on the firearmstactical website, says that the heaviest bullet loads, like 147 grain in 9mm, and 180 grain in .40, have the best stopping power.
I think to put it in this fashion really avoids the core of what firearmstactical's information shows. it isn't so much that heavy is good, use heavy ammo. The real message there is that bullets aren't coated in pixie dust and there is no magic to making a person stop. If you want to force an attacker to stop, you have to break the important parts of the machine. You need to examine the performance of ammo to see if its going to be able to do enough tissue damage to do that or not. Often heavier rounds are best, but we need to remember what we're really looking for. If you haven't read it yet btw http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm is an excellent read. M&S studies aren't scientific and of just too poor quality for me to think anyone should rely on them.

As a surgeon:

Nothing beats close range high velocity.
*snip*
I prefer the higher velocity because I have taken care of many high velocity wounds

Personally I'd be alot more interested in the wounds of people that never make it to your OR. It seems odd to make such a decision on people that are still alive and conscious well past the time they were shot.

chieftain
August 10, 2007, 06:23 AM
Personally I'd be alot more interested in the wounds of people that never make it to your OR. It seems odd to make such a decision on people that are still alive and conscious well past the time they were shot.


At the risk of being obtuse, are you only interested in a given bullets ability to kill with properly placed rounds?

I on the other hand am interested in stopping the BG. Killing is purely incidental. Besides, if you want to kill him, use a rifle or shot gun. both the Shotty and Rifle are more effective at stopping them too.

If harsh words stop a Violent Criminal Actor, that is fine with me too. I am interested in stopping these folks as fast and quickly as possible. The fact it may kill them is purely incidental.

Go figure.

Fred

atomd
August 10, 2007, 10:32 AM
This looks like it has pretty good stopping power. It must be Extreme-Shok.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/denfoote/bwsmall.jpg

Harley Quinn
August 10, 2007, 02:47 PM
Long ago, I was instructed, the body mass is/was good.

But here is the thing the lower body mass... A location that was held to be supreme was the bladder area... (humans) this area is very brutal and takes into account of muscles doing their thing (involuntarily, plus you are more likely to be hitting bone, pelvis and such.

I am still a believer of this, not that you are going to always be able to do this, but it is a stopper they mentioned in training, the person who mentioned it was very good at this thing. The area is not one easily covered with a vest either;) The bad guys are just as well covered in this day and age, but not always.

HQ

Soybomb
August 10, 2007, 04:06 PM
At the risk of being obtuse, are you only interested in a given bullets ability to kill with properly placed rounds?

I on the other hand am interested in stopping the BG. Killing is purely incidental. Besides, if you want to kill him, use a rifle or shot gun. both the Shotty and Rifle are more effective at stopping them too.

If harsh words stop a Violent Criminal Actor, that is fine with me too. I am interested in stopping these folks as fast and quickly as possible. The fact it may kill them is purely incidental.
When we talk about stopping people for sure we're talking about doing massive damage to the neurological or cardiovascular system and forcing them to stop. Death isn't the goal, but it is often a side effect of such things. Sometimes people will get shot and stop because of pain or psychological effect. Other times they don't and they have to be forced to stop their attack. The guy that comes into the OR with an owie stopped voluntarily. I don't want to kill anyone, I don't even want to wound anyone, but I want to be able to stop people that have to be forced to stop and aren't going to have the courtesy to stop because I shot them. Can you describe how a bullet can reliably force an attacker to stop in a way that doesn't carry the decent chance of death with it?

plus you are more likely to be hitting bone, pelvis and such.

“I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:

-- From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and 18 not a target in the pelvis.
-- The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior vena cava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge laterally from the midline (getting farther from it as they descend). Even if hit, each carry far less blood than the larger vessels from which they originated. Thus, even if one of these branches in the pelvis is hit, incapacitation from blood loss must necessarily be slower than from a major vessel hit higher up in the torso.
-- Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (1oops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training — and to most of those with medical training.

The “theory” stated in the question postulates that “certain autonomic responses the body undergoes during periods of stress” causes officers to shoot low, and that apparently this is good in a gunfight because such shots cause “severe disability.” I hope that the points presented above debunk the second part of the theory. As for the “autonomic responses” that cause officers to shoot low, I am unaware of anything in the anatomy or physiology of the autonomic nervous system that would even suggest such an occurrence. Most laymen do not understand the function of the autonomic nervous system. It is simply a system whose main function is to fine tune the glands and smooth muscles (those in the walls of organs and blood vessels) of the body. During times of stress such as perceived impending danger, the autonomic nervous system diverts blood from the intestines and digestive organs to the skeletal muscles — in the so-called “fight or flight” response. The effects of this response are constantly exaggerated by laymen who lack an adequate understanding of it — most notably by gun writ-ers eager to impress their readers. Interestingly, the human body can get along quite well without major parts of the autonomic nervous system. During my professional life as a surgeon, myself and colleagues removed parts of thousands of vagus nerves (mostly in treating peptic ulcer disease) -- thus depriving the patient of the major part of the parasympathetic half of the autonomic nervous system. We also removed many ganglia from the sympathetic half of the auto-nomic nervous system, in treating such things as profusely excess sweating and various problems caused by spasm of the arteries. I am unaware of any evidence that these operations produced any significant effect on the future capacity of these patients to react appropriately in times of impending danger.

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”

revjen45
August 10, 2007, 04:13 PM
I carry 147 gr in my 9mm because I want it to penetrate all the way to the spine, or not bounce off of the goblin's skull. It seems like neurological damage is the only quick way to incapacitate an assailant with a handgun. I also don't want to be concerned whether it will penetrate a leather jacket or heavy winter clothing. IMHO good tactics and shot placement are more important than caliber choice. .50 Desert Eagles are kind of inconvenient to carry. If it were legal and practical I would carry my Mossberg Persuader or SKS.

XDKingslayer
August 10, 2007, 04:57 PM
This looks like it has pretty good stopping power. It must be Extreme-Shok.

Correct.

In fact, that is one of their sub-sonic .22 rounds.

chieftain
August 10, 2007, 05:19 PM
I carry 147 gr in my 9mm because I want it to penetrate all the way to the spine, or not bounce off of the goblin's skull. It seems like neurological damage is the only quick way to incapacitate an assailant with a handgun. I also don't want to be concerned whether it will penetrate a leather jacket or heavy winter clothing. IMHO good tactics and shot placement are more important than caliber choice. .50 Desert Eagles are kind of inconvenient to carry. If it were legal and practical I would carry my Mossberg Persuader or SKS.

Interesting. For more than 80 years, the 9mm in 124FMJ and 115FMJ was criticized for over penetration. (Over penetration is an important secondary problem. For the sake of this discussion let us lay that discussion aside.) That over penetration takes place even with the weak United States standard loads. So 147gr sure ain't needed for penetration.

Even with Bullet proof Vests, it is the 9mm that most often, of the standard fighting pistol cartridges, is the most difficult to stop.

On the other hand, no less luminary as Lt Col Cooper admitted many times that the 45acp suffered from poor/weak penetration.

IF as professed by some, only central neuro hits are the ONLY sure way to stop a VCA, then the over penetrator should be the superior "stopping" round. I agree that Central neuro hits do stop folks. But so do some other hits. Hit a knee Cap and watch what happens. Hit a full bladder, think in the terms of hitting a watermelon etc....

I do agree that dead is one way to be SURE the VCA is stopped. I don't have that much time in any firefight. I want to neutralize the Bad guy faster than it takes most folks short of a brain shot (spinal hits will not always kill the VCA. Like the Knee shot it does anchor them.) to die. I don't want my Tombstone to read, "he made the kill shot". I want the stopping shot, with the round "most likely" to accomplish that.

I believe that NO fighting Handgun cartridge has the ability to reliably stop anyone. Some bullets tend to stop them more often than others. That is what we argue about.

I agree with the statement that mindset and tactics are much more important. ( I use as comparison the Virginia Tech massacre vs the gunman that started shooting at unarmed Special Forces/Ranger troops about 20 years ago. The Troops took the gunman out, before he hit to many of them. We can remember what the folks that felt Safe in their gun free zone did and suffered.) Mind set and Tactics.

But I still believe some bullets are marginally better than others. The good news is that there are a lot of good bullets to choose from today, and the differences are very small.

As stated, Mind set, good tactics, Reliable platform, best bullets possible, hit reliably and shoot to ground. (anyone still believes in the double tap, meet Darwin and the theory of Evolution)

Simple in the end. Oh yea, no jello was murdered in the presentation of this argument.

Go figure.

Fred

LightningJoe
August 11, 2007, 02:54 AM
It can't even be proven that 45 Auto is better than 32 Auto. There're too many other variables of greater importance than caliber. Most of them are inside the shootee's head. All "stopping power" differences between calibers are theoretical. No centerfire caliber has been or can be empirically demonstrated to be better than any other in stopping a fight. That includes
.25 Auto, 45 Auto, and 10mm. Why not? Because the psychological aspects of a gunfight are so much more importance than the physical ones that all physical differences between calibers are lost in the noise.

Cromlech
August 11, 2007, 08:35 AM
While of course I have no experience in this, I would say that a decent load (quality self-defense ammo), and good shot placement are the key. If someone is wearing body armour, however then you might be better off with FMJ or a specialist load.

45auto
August 11, 2007, 08:49 AM
Well, everyone does know, deep down, bigger bullets are better. The question is only how much better and at what cost?

The only "reason" smaller bullets are even discussed as "equal" is because of "expanding" designs...larger! Bigger bullets will expand even larger...how is that not "better" given all the variables of those circumstances.

But, at what cost! Heavier gun, less mag capacity, more recoil, etc. Maybe, maybe not. That's for the individual to decide and in what circumstances IMHO.

Harley Quinn
August 11, 2007, 12:17 PM
45auto,

True todays technology has brought about some great bullets. Funny thing though the bullets that are doing the job very well are the bigger harder ones that don't expand, similar to solids. Years ago the semi wad cutter design was used very effectivly, as I remember.

They have to get in to do the job, so no expansion is used. On human targets and soft skinned animals they have come up with some real changes for sure.
In areas where not much clothing is worn or where it is worn with heavy coats and multiple layers, I would think those departments (LEO) would not be carrying the same bullet design.

The one thing that is interesting is the design for the air security industry. They are designed not to go through and then through the hull of the plane.:uhoh:

I would think the 45 cal would be a good one for the air security, for the reason that they are not good penetration in the first place (metal).

Anyone know what the Air Marshals are carrying, and if you are a LEO and traveling on a plane with ccw are there restrictions to what you can have on your person.
The Law that allows LEO to carry on planes now has to be tricky, I'd think:scrutiny:

texagun
August 11, 2007, 01:19 PM
Criticism of Marshall and Sanow's methods and presentations are valid. These guys are not scientists skilled in the use of the Scientific Method. They are cops presenting the results of the data (however flawed) that they have gathered. I tend to rely on more scientific presentations like those presented by Flackler and others more thoroughly steeped in presenting scientifically valid data. That being said, it looks to me like real-world results agree rather closely with some of Marshall and Sanow's conclusions. If you have ever visited Marshall's web site you will see that he is quite close-minded and tolerates no oppositon or disagreement with his views. You will be banned if you step out of line. That is a huge red flag to me regarding his methods, motives (selling books), and skill in evaluating scientific data.

MontanaBighorn
August 11, 2007, 02:03 PM
i agree that the criticism of M&S is valid. i dont however, agree with that criticism in that M&S conclusions are discredited. again, i find value in both viewpoints. M&S deals with probabilities of expectation. so long as you dont try to make it anymore than that, its very valid.

chieftain
August 11, 2007, 04:21 PM
Well, everyone does know, deep down, bigger bullets are better. The question is only how much better and at what cost?

I do not believe, deep down, bigger slow bullets are better or worse. I simply do not have any religious beliefs involved in this specific argument.

IF bigger bullets are always better, the 45acp 230gr would be a better “stopper” than a 5.56NATO 55gr. It isn’t.

Folks keep forgetting that little velocity thing that keeps getting in the way. It creates a bunch of things, amongst them is energy, or the ability to do work.

When does “enough” velocity, for a given caliber, make up for bigger rocks is the question as related to “stopping”.


True todays technology has brought about some great bullets. Funny thing though the bullets that are doing the job very well are the bigger harder ones that don't expand, similar to solids. Years ago the semi wad cutter design was used very effectivly, as I remember.

The top of the line 38spl load, at various times called the St. Louis/Chicago/FBI load was the 158gr Lead HPSWC +P. Also known as the load that ended the Miami Massacre, when fired out of a 357Mag S&W.

It is a shame that those same revolvers were not loaded with a LIGHTER FASTER and possibly the “best” stopping round ever fired out of a fighting handgun. The 125gr Semi Jacketed Federal 357Magnum or the full house Remington version. (they made a mild load too). No agency ever dropped the 125Mag loads mentioned because of the lack of stopping power. None!

By the way, they are known for expanding “explosively”. And according to the Jello murderers a poor selection. Work on that for a while.

Back to the 38spl.

Why was it the best load? Because it expanded reliably and went deep. Remember bullets behave differently upon impact with a human if they are going supersonic (approx 1100fps).

The Secret Service, on the other hand, found much success with the very light hi speed 38 loads. 110gr at +P+ velocities and later continued along those lines with the +P+ 115 gr 9mm's and today with the 357SIG 125gr hypervelocity round.


They have to get in to do the job, so no expansion is used. On human targets and soft skinned animals they have come up with some real changes for sure.
In areas where not much clothing is worn or where it is worn with heavy coats and multiple layers, I would think those departments (LEO) would not be carrying the same bullet design.

Please read the immediate prior answer.


Criticism of Marshall and Sanow's methods and presentations are valid. These guys are not scientists skilled in the use of the Scientific Method. They are cops presenting the results of the data (however flawed) that they have gathered. I tend to rely on more scientific presentations like those presented by Flackler and others more thoroughly steeped in presenting scientifically valid data. That being said, it looks to me like real-world results agree rather closely with some of Marshall and Sanow's conclusions. If you have ever visited Marshall's web site you will see that he is quite close-minded and tolerates no opposition or disagreement with his views. You will be banned if you step out of line. That is a huge red flag to me regarding his methods, motives (selling books), and skill in evaluating scientific data.

Interesting, I agree about the scientific Criticism of M&S. But from the beginning they never claimed any “scientific methods”. Their data and info were what they were, a collection of anecdotal data that they collected while protecting their sources. They made their own observations and conclusions from the collection of that data. It is what it is.

As to Marshall’s site, and his sensitivity to being attacked, I understand perfectly why.

Flacklers scientific attacks on M&S frankly go over the top. All Flackler proved was which bullet killed, to Flackler’s satisfaction, a given dimensional size of Jello. As our argument is about stopping, not killing human beings, his data and information are interesting, and may even be useful, but definitive, not by a long shot.

Remember Flacklers herd originally chose 10-12 inches as the “needed” depth. Then later changed to 12-14inches. What changed? Human beings? Jello? The cartridges?

I think both Flackler and Marshall bring important data to the table. The difference is, in my opinion, Flackler got famous by and for attacking Marshall.

Marshall, when ever in the public domain, now wears, asbestos. He needs to after what Flackler and his gang did to him.


i agree that the criticism of M&S is valid. i dont however, agree with that criticism in that M&S conclusions are discredited. again, i find value in both viewpoints. M&S deals with probabilities of expectation. so long as you dont try to make it anymore than that, its very valid.

BINGO!

I have equal confidence in my 9mm or my 45’s. Frankly, I carry both. Based on which platform I am using. Either a 1911 or Hi power. If I put either's bullets where they belong, the BG will stop or not based on the BG, not the caliber or bullets. IF I miss, well I hope Darwin has a nice room for me, and caliber ain't the issue.

If I am not ready to fight, and to carry that fight, to my enemy, it doesn’t matter what is in my holster that day.

Go figure.

Fred

Harley Quinn
August 11, 2007, 04:50 PM
This is good:

If you shoot a forty-five as well as a 9mm, go with the former, but do not expect it to be vastly superior to the nine. With equivalent hits, I doubt that much if any difference will be seen. If one does better with the 9mm, I'd cast my lot with it. Once you have a caliber capable of adequate penetration and expansion, placement is power.
****************

Yep well said, got if from a website mentioned by others.

It is a plain fact that some just cannot shoot the 45, simple, never will get the job done, but they shoot the heck out of a 9mm or a 380.

So that is it in a nut shell I am thinking.

I actually have switched to the 357 Sig for now :neener:

Rexster
August 11, 2007, 05:06 PM
One issue that hurt the credibility of M&S was their closed-book policy on their sources, but I can understand the need for confidentiality, as I am one of those who could be fired for sharing inside information on a shooting incident. (police) My wife is also in an occupation with access to autopsy and forensic data, and could be disciplined or fired for sharing that information. So, when I see people taking issue with M&S's need for secrecy, I wish they would just understand that, instead of launching a conspiracy theory. Just my $0.02 on a very small part of this huge debate. The only eyewitness stuff I can offer is that a Federal 125-grain .357 JHP can indeed make a huge, gruesome wound, with plenty of penetration, that caused at least one bad guy to instantly change his priorities and behaviour. I am still very content to use this ammo, and one of my GP100 sixguns is not for sale, for any sane amount of money. Yet, while in uniform, I must now carry a .40 on my hip, and I don't sweat about it, as it is loaded with premium JHP ammo, and the SIG will reliably put those bullets where I want them to go.

45auto
August 11, 2007, 06:38 PM
I do not believe, deep down, bigger slow bullets are better or worse. I simply do not have any religious beliefs involved in this specific argument.


Not religious beliefs...just common sense!

IF bigger bullets are always better, the 45acp 230gr would be a better “stopper” than a 5.56NATO 55gr. It isn’t.


I thought we were talking about pistol calibers, not rifle which can achieve very high velocities...unlike pistol calibers. 5.56 a better "stopper" than the 7.62?

Harley Quinn,

Agreed, more important to shoot what you can hit with...without a doubt.


But, I'm not "qualified" to get into detailed discussions on ammo effectiveness.
It's not that interesting to me to be honest, and I have no way of really testing any ammo, so I "read" what others say, inject some common sense, and "look" for trends of what different people use.

Many LEO have moved from 9mm to 40, primarily, and some 45.
The military is "looking" to move from the 9mm to 45, maybe 40!

What does that say or mean? ;)

And, I don't feel unharmed with a 38, 9mm or even a 380...but!

Harley Quinn
August 11, 2007, 06:53 PM
And, I don't feel unarmed with a 38, 9mm or even a 380...but!
***************

I figure that is why you are 45auto! LOL...
HQ

chieftain
August 11, 2007, 07:37 PM
Not religious beliefs...just common sense!

Who’s common sense. Although many knowledgeable folks agree with you, many knowledgeable folks don’t. THAT is the point.

In Vietnam, the 45 I was issued often could not penetrate the Flak jacket I was wearing. My 38 ALWAYS could, and so could the 9mm.

My buddy was hit in the knee with a 45. It could not penetrate his knee cap (patella) and just slid down and took a ‘bite’ out of his foot. The corpsman just looked at it and clearly stated, “Good thing that wasn’t a 9mm, it would have blown your knee away.”

Now that is a couple of my own, experiences with the 45/9 controversy. I have more, but not so definitive.

I guess your REAL life experiences have “proven” your common sense. I only have my own to live by.



I thought we were talking about pistol calibers, not rifle which can achieve very high velocities...unlike pistol calibers. 5.56 a better "stopper" than the 7.62?

At times, yes. Up close the 55gr 5.56NATO was a better stopper than the 7.62NATO. By up close, I guess from about 50 yards in. As the distance got further the 7.62 took over at about 125+/- meters. Now understand that difference was not over whelming, just all the hype about the round out of the Maty Mattel was that it did work pretty good close in, when the platform would go bang. That was the biggest issue in the beginning.

The speed or velocity needed for “rifle” like effects is not answered, by the scientists or anyone else.

Many of us think this effect starts at 1300fps +. Many don’t.


Agreed, more important to shoot what you can hit with...without a doubt.

I agree totally. I am pretty new at this game. Only been shooting since about 1955 and center fire pistols since 58. But I can almost hit anything with most any reasonable handgun or caliber. Presently my small collection of handguns only covers a few calibers, 22, 32, 38spl, 357mag, 380, 9mm, 40S&W, 357SIG, 10mm, 44spl, 44Mag, 45acp, 45Colt,. Oh and some Cap and ball in 44 too.

I now compete in action pistol with both 9mm and 45acp. In my Bullseye/2700 days it was 38spl.

I don’t doubt your experience is much greater than mine.


But, I'm not "qualified" to get into detailed discussions on ammo effectiveness.
It's not that interesting to me to be honest, and I have no way of really testing any ammo, so I "read" what others say, inject some common sense, and "look" for trends of what different people use.

Careful. It often depends on who’s common sense your talking about.

And another word for trends is FAD.


Many LEO have moved from 9mm to 40, primarily, and some 45.
The military is "looking" to move from the 9mm to 45, maybe 40!

Many have. Many have moved from 40 and 45 to 9mm, too. The only caliber I have heard no complaints from the field is the 357SIG. Like it’s precedent, the 357Mag, no complaints by anyone. I know of no agency that has, once totally into the 357SIG, moved away from it. Starting most notably with the US Secret Service.


And, I don't feel unharmed with a 38, 9mm or even a 380...but!

Good!

I am sure one day that ‘But’ will disappear too. Understand, as I write this I am wearing a 5” 1911 with 230gr Golden Sabers. Tomorrow I may be wearing my FN Hi Power with 115 gr Cor-Bon Dpx. My BUG is either of my 6442s or my 638 in 38spl which I have just changed the carry load from 158gr +P HPLSWC Winchesters to the new Speer 135gr JHP +P. It is the platforms that I need and use now, that matter. The revolver I used to carry for CCW before it was legal, was a 3” model 66 S&W with night Sights and loaded with 125gr Federal “full house” 357Mag. By the way, the Glock I am considering for CCW is the 19, with the Cor-Bon DPX’s. When my arthritis in my trigger finger ain’t to bad I consider carrying it and usually wind up with one of my Hi Powers.

Just as an aside about guns vs. caliber, given a choice and the arthritis gone I would carry one of my many SIGs. Most often the 228 in 9mm.

In Nam, I ditched the 45, it was to unreliable, and carried a Victory model (a WW II rough finished model 10) 4” S&W in 38spl. I could get ammo from the Chopper air Crews or pilots. It always went bang.

Reliability trumps caliber every day and way, every time.

Go figure.

Fred

QuickRick
August 11, 2007, 08:24 PM
I place a great deal of stock in the Marshall stats because they rely on the best test medium of all....live (at the time) human beings. Only solid torso hits count as well. The emphasis is on rapid stoppage of assailants rather than "killing power" as it should be in my opinion. I still buy the bigger is better theory when comparing non expanding bullets. I'll take a 44 Special over a 38 Special anytime my life is on the line. That said, everything changed when the bullet and ammo makers started producing reliable expanding bullets at handgun velocities. Bullets like the Remington golden sabre and Speer gold dot make full house loads in the smaller calibers 90% or better one shot stoppers on the Marshall scale. Tissue disruption is the name of the game and reliable expanding bullets in the small calibers do it better than non expanding bullets in larger calibers. That is my 2 cents worth on a controversial subject....

Nnobby45
August 11, 2007, 10:26 PM
On the other side of this contraversy are people like Dr. Martin Fackler, who was a surgical pathologist for the Army and has personally operated on battlefield injuries as well as conducted numerous autopsies of gunshot victims. Dr. Fackler has had direct support and access to both military wounding data as well as LE shooting data. Lastly, Dr. Fackler was one of the early proponents of using ballistic gelatin as a means to test bullet performance.

Which one are you going to believe?
I'd believe the one who spent time researching what ammo works best on the street. As far as his oss% is concerned, no one could use a standard without flaws.

While Fackler is an expert in his field, having studied a zillion cadavers and examined their wounds, I don't know how examinging dead people would be very definitive with regards to determining incapcitation time, or that Fackler ever attempted to do that--or that Marshall ever disputed Fackler or vise versa.

And yet, it always seems to be Fackler vs Marshall--not because they oppose one another so much as because others quote them in order to support their own positions.

What if they're both right? Deep penetrating wounds are more likely to produce cadavers for Fackler to study, and bullets that penetrate less and expand more cause quicker incapacitation?

Harley Quinn
August 11, 2007, 10:33 PM
What if they're both right? Deep penetrating wounds are more likely to produce cadavers for Fackler to study, and bullets that penetrate less and expand more cause quicker incapacitation?
**********

Hey by gosh, I think you've got it Watson. Now we need to have others realize this scenario:what:


Reno is a nice little town, how about a Californian coming up and getting some land??? Or are we not welcome?:D

HQ

LightningJoe
August 12, 2007, 01:25 AM
I think you guys are looking in the wrong place. Forget incapacitation. Rarely happens. Demoralization is what stops the BG, that and fear. If those don't stop the BG, he'll go till he bleeds to death. That might take an hour unless you hit his aorta. And even if you do, he can empty his magazine, reload, empty that magazine, pull out his Bowie knife and be all over you before he blacks out.

1911 guy
August 12, 2007, 04:36 AM
Any weapon small enough to hang on your belt is mediocre.
There are no "one shot stops" in the real world.
Percentages are useless. Be concerned about the fight you're in, not the one you mapped and graphed.
With a premium bullet design, 9mm through .45acp are on pretty much equal footing.

Now for my opinion. Marshall and Sanow I'm sure tried to do a good study. However, I'm also sure it was lacking because it, like every other study, cannot take into account the human factor. There are simply too many variables to quantify "stopping power". Accept this and carry a large caliber sidearm with a premium H.P. bullet designed to expand at cartridge specific velocity.

rolltide
August 12, 2007, 10:51 AM
I DISAGREE that this discussion has "gone nuclear." (although I thought the prediction was going to be accurate.)

This has been one of the most level headed discussions I have seen on this topic in all the years I have followed and been involved in such discussions.

I really can't add anything significant to the dicussion that hasn't already been said except.....

There is a reason they call this place the HIGHROAD.

Thanks for the mostly level headed comments on a very divisive topic.

Roll Tide
(Got Saban? We Do!)
PS I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist trying to start a little trouble. It is less than 3 weeks to the start of the college football season. Then we will see who has the real STOPPING POWER (of the run and pass that is.) :)

MCgunner
August 12, 2007, 11:50 AM
Criticism of Marshall and Sanow's methods and presentations are valid. These guys are not scientists skilled in the use of the Scientific Method. They are cops presenting the results of the data (however flawed) that they have gathered. I tend to rely on more scientific presentations like those presented by Flackler and others

Fackler is no scientist, he's an MD or coroner or something. Terminal ballistics is the realm of the physicist, not the medical doctor or coroner. M/S are cops, but they have a good working knowledge of statistics and have simply done what statisticians do, assemble a statisical study on real gunfights, not jello shooting or invented ballistic formulae based on momentum, or even killing of goats or swine. Those who complain about the results are normally trying to bolster a case for the 1911 and the .45 to be the only load or gun manufactured, outlaw all else, the Cooper mentality. Anyone who has ever handgun hunted knows there's more to terminal ballistics than bullet diameter. I've killed two, now, with a .357" diameter 158 grain bullet. They didn't last long, either, no more than 25 yards and down and deer are tougher than humans. Total penetration on lung hits behind the shoulder. I'm no scientist, just a hunter, but I know I'd rather hunt with said bullet than a 230 ball .45ACP round.

If you enjoyed reading about "Evan Marshall versus firearmstactical.com" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!