Interesting Stopping Power article/study


PDA






IdahoSkies
July 22, 2011, 02:20 PM
Came across this at another forum. Link posted for those who are interested.

http://cafe.comebackalive.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=53535

Author is Greg Ellifritz, TDI Instructor/Staff.

Excerpt:

"This study took me a long time and a lot of effort to complete. Despite the work it took, I'm glad I did it. The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s. I've stopped worrying about trying to find the “ultimate” bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough “stopping power”. Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important."

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting Stopping Power article/study" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
357 Terms
July 22, 2011, 02:34 PM
wow! Maybe I should buy a 22 carry pistol..... nah!

Loosedhorse
July 22, 2011, 11:50 PM
Nihilism. Because good data is hard to get, it must not exist.

I seem to remember reading that the impetus for the 1911 pistol was the dismal failure of .38 Long Colt against the Moro guerillas in the Philippines. Yet I'm supposed to be convinced that a .22 is as good as a .45, "as long as you do your job."

Well, I'm not convinced.

chhodge69
July 23, 2011, 12:04 AM
I'm not convinced either... this doesn't pass the sniff test.

Jeb21
July 23, 2011, 12:34 AM
I don't understand the problem. The most important factor was hit location. The minor differences between the standard defensive calibers had little to no impact.

Ogie
July 23, 2011, 12:58 AM
"I seem to remember reading that the impetus for the 1911 pistol was the dismal failure of .38 Long Colt against the Moro guerillas in the Philippines. Yet I'm supposed to be convinced that a .22 is as good as a .45, "as long as you do your job.""

The Krag rifles didn't do so great against drugged up assailants either. I'm pretty sure the 1911 would have met with the same results.

The study shows what other studies have reported as well. Caliber, from .38 special upward, just doesn't make much difference in a handgun.

Dr_B
July 23, 2011, 01:04 AM
According to those data, I should carry a shotgun everywhere. So....

gvf
July 23, 2011, 03:43 AM
Came across this at another forum. Link posted for those who are interested.

http://cafe.comebackalive.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=53535

Author is Greg Ellifritz, TDI Instructor/Staff.

Excerpt:

"This study took me a long time and a lot of effort to complete. Despite the work it took, I'm glad I did it. The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s. I've stopped worrying about trying to find the “ultimate” bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough “stopping power”. Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important."
I've seen this before - the science behind it is pretty loose. But you may as well pay attention to it as any other study of "stopping power". There are too many variables in any shooting to make accurate conclusions about what's causing what. If you took a pen and paper in hours you would still be writing the variables, from slight variations in angle/height/distance of the gun, to the same with the shooters hand, the gun, it's condition, the time of day, the size of each shooter, physical health, weather, season, clothing, on and on and on.

There is not enough data to measure comparisons - you'd need hundreds and hundreds of thousands of shootings with detailed knowledge of each to even start. That doesn't exist.

Neither does "stopping power" outside of ballistics - once you put the round in a gun, it's no longer just ballistics. Once you add in even 1/10th of the variables it's not about any one thing.

Shoot what you think you could shoot best on the worst shooting day you've ever had or would ever have: it likely will be in an SD crisis. Carry that.

Prosser
July 23, 2011, 06:45 AM
I did a similar study. Mine was to find out the effect of .375 H&H rifle slugs on humans. Only one I could find was an accidential discharge that blew the hunters arm pretty much off, causing death by bleeding. So. It's not a one shot stop, since the guy lost his arm, and died later, like 5 hours. Therefore, the .375 is just as effective as a .22lr....

In short, use a bit of logic. Yes, we need to get outside of the box to get effective stopping power compared to the service calibers. .45 might work, but, you can do FAR better then the normal .45 ACP loading.

My bottom line is the 250-260 grain, at 950-1200 fps that the original .45 Colt rounds were so effective with.

My friends have found the .500JRH, with 430-440 grain bullets, at between 950 fps and 1350 fps kill with about the same effect as a .375 H&H rifle. WHY would you carry anything less?

unspellable
July 23, 2011, 09:29 AM
The dirty little secret about the Moro situation is that after the 38 Colt didn't stop them two different 45 rounds were put into service, the old 45 Colt and the 45 Revolver. They also failed to stop along with the Krag's 30 Army round. The only conclusion you can draw from that is that no non-expanding bullets makes a good stopper.

possum
July 23, 2011, 10:33 AM
I was given a copy of this, and a whole bunch of other info in a recent course with Paul Gomez, I am glad to see that this is getting around.

For all those that have an issue with it, he says pretty plainly in the report if you don't like it/ agree to do your own research.

Kleanbore
July 23, 2011, 11:02 AM
Posted by possum: For all those that have an issue with it, he says pretty plainly in the report if you don't like it/ agree to do your own research.For those who do not have an issue with it, re-read and reflect upon this, posted by gvf:

...the science behind it is pretty loose. But you may as well pay attention to it as any other study of "stopping power". There are too many variables in any shooting to make accurate conclusions about what's causing what. If you took a pen and paper in hours you would still be writing the variables, from slight variations in angle/height/distance of the gun, to the same with the shooters hand, the gun, it's condition, the time of day, the size of each shooter, physical health, weather, season, clothing, on and on and on.

There is not enough data to measure comparisons - you'd need hundreds and hundreds of thousands of shootings with detailed knowledge of each to even start. That doesn't exist.

If that very true assessment does lacks sufficient "power of legitimacy" for some, go to this (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf) and read pages 13-15.

That should amply explain the shortcomings inherent in Mr. Ellifritz' study, and it should dissuade anyone from trying the same thing on his own.

PedalBiker
July 23, 2011, 11:46 AM
The key to a good statistician is knowing which variables can be ignored, which can be controlled for and whether the study even had any value worth reporting.

I'd call this study interesting, possibly even useful. But key variables were ignored while minor ones were overemphasized. I understand the reason he grouped results the way he did. One major problem is that there is so much choice in ammunition these days. One brand, one caliber, one bullet weight will have three hollow point options. Most options don't have any reasonable track record.

I still like to see gelatin tests for the rounds I carry, particularly the Denim ones.

Police departments are run by folks who really don't want to spend extra money on ammo if they don't have to. With a few exceptions most of them buy some kind of "premium" hollow point and they don't bother with .22s or .25's.

I don't worry about windshield and drywall tests, but otherwise I'm looking for similar results to the FBI requirements.

gvf
July 23, 2011, 12:30 PM
For those who do not have an issue with it, re-read and reflect upon this, posted by gvf:



If that very true assessment does lacks sufficient "power of legitimacy" for some, go to this (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf) and read pages 13-15.

That should amply explain the shortcomings inherent in Mr. Ellifritz' study, and it should dissuade anyone from trying the same thing on his own.
The article referenced by KLEANBORE is a seminal FBI study of
"HANDGUN WOUNDING FACTORS AND EFFECTIVENESS"

Among the conclusions reached is this very important one to do with psychology. It's worth quoting:

"Further, it appears that many people are predisposed to fall down when shot. This phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or hit location, and is beyond the control of the shooter. It can only be proven in the act, not predicted. It requires only two factors to be effected: a shot and cognition of being shot by the target. Lacking either one, people are not at all predisposed to fall down and don’t. Given this predisposition, the choice of caliber and bullet is essentially irrelevant. People largely fall down when shot, and the apparent predisposition to do so exists with equal force among the good guys as among the bad. The causative factors are most likely psychological in origin. Thousands of books, movies and television shows have educated the general population that when shot, one is supposed to fall down."

So, this effect takes care of numerous shootings, (hopefully an effect on the BG and not you). And the question really is: what about the rest: i.e., when there is no awareness of being shot, lack of pain, use of drugs, booze, adrenaline etc.? And the article focuses primarily on those and the science which underlies caliber choices - which may give an "edge".

But, the important point about the "fall downs" based on psychology as opposed to physical cause, is that they are UNPREDICTABLE. That doesn't mean there isn't science involved in shootings and that it doesn't include ballistic considerations. There is and it does. But to me it also means Fate is involved, (or Fate in the guise of chance, fluke, coincidence). That, together with the very low likelihood of actual being in a shooting, makes me not worry so much about which gun, caliber, to pick.

I likely will be better off in a self-defense crisis having a gun and having practiced with it. Beyond that: "?"

That's as good as it gets...

Ogie
July 23, 2011, 01:36 PM
"The dirty little secret about the Moro situation is that after the 38 Colt didn't stop them two different 45 rounds were put into service, the old 45 Colt and the 45 Revolver. They also failed to stop along with the Krag's 30 Army round. The only conclusion you can draw from that is that no non-expanding bullets makes a good stopper."

Uh....pretty much what I said earlier and not really a secret at all.

Also, you can't even draw a conclusion about non-expanding bullets. You have to keep in mind that the Moros were highly drugged and that looking for "one shot stops" under those circumstances is highly unlikely.

VA27
July 23, 2011, 01:56 PM
...But, the important point about the "fall downs" based on psychology as opposed to physical cause, is that they are UNPREDICTABLE. That doesn't mean there isn't science involved in shootings and that it doesn't include ballistic considerations. There is and it does. But to me it also means Fate in involved, (or Fate in the guise of chance, fluke, coincidence). That, together with the very low likelihood of actual being in a shooting, makes me not worry so much about which gun, caliber, to pick.

I likely will be better off in a self-defense crisis having a gun and having practiced with it. Beyond that: "?"

That's as good as it gets...

The above quoted for truth. Have a loaded gun and know how to use it. Everything else is just window dressing.

An unknown Marine Gunnery Sargent, upon being questioned about the combat effectiveness of the 5.56mm, said:

"Shoot him where he's biggest and do it more than once. If he thinks he's dead, he'll fall down. If he doesn't, you have to convince him some more."

I think that applies to all armed confrontations.

481
July 23, 2011, 03:17 PM
I've seen this before - the science behind it is pretty loose. But you may as well pay attention to it as any other study of "stopping power". There are too many variables in any shooting to make accurate conclusions about what's causing what. If you took a pen and paper in hours you would still be writing the variables, from slight variations in angle/height/distance of the gun, to the same with the shooters hand, the gun, it's condition, the time of day, the size of each shooter, physical health, weather, season, clothing, on and on and on.

There is not enough data to measure comparisons - you'd need hundreds and hundreds of thousands of shootings with detailed knowledge of each to even start. That doesn't exist.

Neither does "stopping power" outside of ballistics - once you put the round in a gun, it's no longer just ballistics. Once you add in even 1/10th of the variables it's not about any one thing.

Shoot what you think you could shoot best on the worst shooting day you've ever had or would ever have: it likely will be in an SD crisis. Carry that.

Thank you for the well thought-out perspective.

The pursuit of a statistically driven "combat data" model would require an immense pool of extremely detailed data (one that will never exist for obvious reasons) in order to properly address the multitude of variables implicit in its composure and for that reason this newest attempt is just another exercise in advanced speculation much like the preceding M&S debacle.

For those who do not have an issue with it, re-read and reflect upon this, posted by gvf:



If that very true assessment does lacks sufficient "power of legitimacy" for some, go to this (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf) and read pages 13-15.

That should amply explain the shortcomings inherent in Mr. Ellifritz' study, and it should dissuade anyone from trying the same thing on his own.

Words to live by. :)

Don't try this at home folks. ;)

THplanes
July 23, 2011, 04:09 PM
The article referenced by KLEANBORE is a seminal FBI study of
"HANDGUN WOUNDING FACTORS AND EFFECTIVENESS"

Among the conclusions reached is this very important one to do with psychology. It's worth quoting:

"Further, it appears that many people are predisposed to fall down when shot. This phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or hit location, and is beyond the control of the shooter. It can only be proven in the act, not predicted. It requires only two factors to be effected: a shot and cognition of being shot by the target. Lacking either one, people are not at all predisposed to fall down and don’t. Given this predisposition, the choice of caliber and bullet is essentially irrelevant. People largely fall down when shot, and the apparent predisposition to do so exists with equal force among the good guys as among the bad. The causative factors are most likely psychological in origin. Thousands of books, movies and television shows have educated the general population that when shot, one is supposed to fall down."
..

So can you point me to the psychological studies that support these claims. As a secondary question, even if all rapid incapacitation that doesn't come from a CNS hit is psychological in nature, where are the psychological studies that demonstrate caliber and load make no difference.

Do we attribute a deer shot with a service caliber handgun, non CNS wound, falling in a few seconds to deer TV.

2zulu1
July 23, 2011, 06:19 PM
It appears the author did a lot of personal research for this project; however, a national database repository for shooting incidents does not exist, therefore the reader only reads an insufficient amount of data that the author gathered. Given the tens of thousands, or more, of lethal and wounded victims/felons over the decades w/o a total database is lacking from my point of view.

Given the efforts of Gene Wolberg, forensic pathologists, Dr Fackler and Duncan MacPherson et al, during the IWBA years; ballistic gelatin that replicated soft tissue became the standard for predicting bullet penetration. In handgun service calibers, tissue destroyed in the crush cavity and laceration are the only wounding factors. At one time the hypothesis of hydrostatic shock, also known as ballistic pressure waves was presented; however, industry professionals have rejected that hypothesis based upon extensive modern ballistic research.

Current published research, 2006, conducted by Duncan MacPherson can be read in his "Bullet Penetration: Modelling the Dynamics and Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma" book. MacPherson's research concluded that there can be psychological effects that can not be predicted in the 'wound trauma incapacitation' model.

MacPherson established a bullet penetration mathematical model that verified properly calibrated ballistic gel as a soft tissue simulant; this was based upon shooting 400 rounds of various types of ammunition through a cumulative total of 2,000 pounds of gel.

Generally speaking, if one knows the captured bullet's weight, impact velocity and expansion; then it can be predicted how far the bullet will penetrate in soft tissue. With the possibilities of angling or through the shoulder shots, including those against very large felons, an average of 14" is recommended with the minimum being 12". A bullet that expands wider than the average will penetrate less through soft tissue and a bullet that expands less than the average will penetrate deeper.

The adage of shooting until the threat no longer exists is still the benchmark for defending oneself and others is still paramount.

Bob

Prosser
July 23, 2011, 07:45 PM
Ddouble

Prosser
July 23, 2011, 07:49 PM
This is a pretty good place to start with comparing calibers, and how they might effect a target.

http://brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1950.htm

Something that isn't brought up much is the ability of heavy bullets to maintain their speed through a target, creating secondary projectiles out of bone increasing the wounding effect.

Someone mentioned that non-expanding bullets aren't very effective as stoppers. I beg to differ. Depending on bullet shape, weight, and velocity you can
create a very large, and effective hole.

This is an exit wound created by a 440 grain, .500 caliber LFN, at 950fps(.500JRH). The effect on the animal was compared to a .375 H&H rifle.
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/440grainHardcastat950fps500JRH300wincartridgeforcomparision.jpg
Here is a .452" LFN hole that proved fatal:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/45deer0111150fps45ColtexitHardcast.jpg
.45 Colt, LFN, 1150 fps.
Wound channel is a function of bullet design, VELOCITY, and bullet weight.

While you can't come up with a magic bullet, you can now come up with calibers, bullets, and velocity in pistols that hit like rifles.

Perhaps instead of ending with .45 caliber, we should use that as a starting point and go up.;)

This one says it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYSGuiko6Gg&feature=related

amazon shooter
July 23, 2011, 08:52 PM
This subject is an enigma and will probably never be solved. There are just too many variables and subjective factors involved.

Each individual will react differently to a gunshot wound. One's will to fight on or to give up is determined only at that moment and can never be calculated. How do you calculate your "will to live" on a scale of 1 to 10!

However, this magic bullet theme pops on gun forums like mushrooms after a spring rain. It is guaranteed to get the heart thumping and the blood boiling.
And everyone has a sensible argument. But when all is said and done, aren't we just talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Personally, I like the full-figure angels with the 45 inch waists and not the skinny ones.

First and foremost - be aware of what is going on around you and avoid any potentially dangerous situations when possible.

Second - It helps if you have a killer instinct, if not, don't carry a gun. When that violent confrontation comes, it's going to happen fast and furious and you will probably have a few seconds to know if have survived a shoot out or knife attack.

The conclusion is simple - carry a gun and caliber that you will trust your life with. To each his own.

Loosedhorse
July 23, 2011, 10:13 PM
carry a gun and caliber that you will trust your life with.Or...just believe this author's conclusions, and switch to a .22. Apparently works as well as the larger calibers, and is cheaper, easier to shoot accurately and quicker for follow-up shots. Not that you'll need any. Everything else is overkill--you meanies!

;)

Or...you can decide the data presented actually shows that--guess what?--Marshall and Sanow were right: .357 is the best, only 9% of those shot were not incapacitated. That is as good as the data on centerfire rifles, and better than shotguns!

.357's better than having a shotgun! It's been proven. :)

Sky
July 23, 2011, 11:09 PM
Fall down?

Stopping power?

In Honolulu a troop got out of a UH-1 helicopter which had landed on the side of a hill. The troop ran "up hill" and the rotor blade took his head off a cleanly as any guillotine. The body continued to run another 4 steps before falling.

Bodies of all organic creatures exhibit different characteristics when mortally wounded.

So if a BG were shooting at you and some magic guillotine took his head off would the body continue to shoot until internal pressure dropped to a point where nothing functioned? Again the are to many variable to forecast the end result with 100% certainly?

Many have been shot with all kinds of calibers and that was their last day on earth. Did they cease to exhibit aggressive tendencies immediately? Some did some did not.

Think the study was an honest attempt to just state the facts as he found them. Thanks for the post.

THplanes
July 23, 2011, 11:22 PM
ion. In handgun service calibers, tissue destroyed in the crush cavity and laceration are the only wounding factors. At one time the hypothesis of hydrostatic shock, also known as ballistic pressure waves was presented; however, industry professionals have rejected that hypothesis based upon extensive modern ballistic research.

Current published research, 2006, conducted by Duncan MacPherson can be read in his "Bullet Penetration: Modelling the Dynamics and Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma" book. MacPherson's research concluded that there can be psychological effects that can not be predicted in the 'wound trauma incapacitation' model.

Bob

I would suggest that the surface area of the permanent crush cavity is a better measure of wounding than the crush cavity. Pulped tissue doesn't bleed, other than the blood actually in the destroyed tissue. The surface of the wound is what bleeds.

Hydrostatic shock is not the same thing as a ballistic pressure wave

MacPhersons book is from 1994. There was a second printing in 2005. I've just started reading it so I can't comment on it yet.

THplanes
July 23, 2011, 11:36 PM
This is a pretty good place to start with comparing calibers, and how they might effect a target.

http://brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1950.htm

Something that isn't brought up much is the ability of heavy bullets to maintain their speed through a target, creating secondary projectiles out of bone increasing the wounding effect.

Someone mentioned that non-expanding bullets aren't very effective as stoppers. I beg to differ. Depending on bullet shape, weight, and velocity you can
create a very large, and effective hole.

This is an exit wound created by a 440 grain, .500 caliber LFN, at 950fps(.500JRH). The effect on the animal was compared to a .375 H&H rifle.
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/440grainHardcastat950fps500JRH300wincartridgeforcomparision.jpg
Here is a .452" LFN hole that proved fatal:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/45deer0111150fps45ColtexitHardcast.jpg
.45 Colt, LFN, 1150 fps.
Wound channel is a function of bullet design, VELOCITY, and bullet weight.

While you can't come up with a magic bullet, you can now come up with calibers, bullets, and velocity in pistols that hit like rifles.

Perhaps instead of ending with .45 caliber, we should use that as a starting point and go up.;)

This one says it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYSGuiko6Gg&feature=related

Sorry, that can't happen at those velocities.

Fackler said it
I believe it
and that's that ;)

481
July 23, 2011, 11:42 PM
I would suggest that the surface area of the permanent crush cavity is a better measure of wounding than the crush cavity. Pulped tissue doesn't bleed, other than the blood actually in the destroyed tissue. The surface of the wound is what bleeds.

MacPhersons book is from 1994. There was a second printing in 2005. I've just started reading it so I can't comment on it yet.

Since the surface area of the permanent wound cavity is a function of the permanent wound cavity's length and circumference, it is directly proportional to the volume of the permanent wound cavity (and its volumetric mass) and as such, is already accounted for in MacPherson's model.

Prosser
July 24, 2011, 02:09 AM
Fackler said it
I believe it
and that's that

;)

It's horrible when real observations get in the way of theory.:D

If you start looking at Beartooth's wound channel calculator, it starts making sense. You get a real good jump in wound channel when you move into the 1100-1350 fps range, and, another boost since at the higher velocity, the big cast bullets start to mushroom:
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/Model%2083%20FA%20475/DSC_0060FA83Barrelshotbulletsverycl.jpg
Third from the left is a 500JRH load that hit a buffalo at 1350 fps, 430 grain bullet, and penetrated 6 feet.
So, you get an increased wound channel from velocity, bullet design, mushrooming of an LFN that's already huge to begin with, not to mention that the cavity is created by the bullet blowing a huge hole, at near constant velocity through the target, vs. service calibers that loose all their energy in the first 8" of penetration,and what everyone has observed for 100 years, that there is a HUGE difference in effect between .45 caliber, and the .475's, .500's, and .510's.

We now have handguns that are so far outside the service caliber box that one has to remember they are there. Also, no one has really explained why
big, well, huge, .475 and .510 caliber bullets are so much more effective
then .45's, at slow-medium velocities, read 950-1500 fps.

They guys that hunt with this stuff have observations on large animals that don't make much sense. Why would a 525 grain, .510 caliber LFN, at 1100 fps, kill better then heavy rifles?

gvf
July 24, 2011, 05:11 AM
So can you point me to the psychological studies that support these claims. As a secondary question, even if all rapid incapacitation that doesn't come from a CNS hit is psychological in nature, where are the psychological studies that demonstrate caliber and load make no difference.

Do we attribute a deer shot with a service caliber handgun, non CNS wound, falling in a few seconds to deer TV.
You'd have to ask the FBI. It's their document. I quoted it because I believe they are reliable.

It wouldn't surprise me if their observation was based on.... professional observation, rather than a Psychological study. They certainly have done a lot of thorough assessments of actual shootings if you read the entire document. Nor is it difficult to reach such a conclusion from post-shooting analysis of the wound as well as the behavior of the wounded. They apparently often do not correspond. And interviews after would give valuable info on the subjective awareness of the wounded participant.

It's also fairly common for non-experts, the public including interested shooters like us, to hear of the same phenomena, in news stories, or on internet forums dealing with the subject of SD shootings, or from other places.

One point: the conclusion about "propensity of many to fall-down when shot" - irrespective of the wound - the FBI states is "many", not "all".

What I find suspicious in is not so much the FBI's conclusions as your reaction to them. It appears these make you angry and demanding. You must have a need to believe you can determine, through caliber or other choice, the outcome of an extremely complicated event that does not exist at the present time and likely never will . Otherwise, the usual reaction - relief that a would-be killer may well succumb to any shot - would be there.
***
-As to your comparison to deer, though offered mockingly, it actually supports the conclusion in the report. An animal will either fall or not fall purely based on the wound. So the behavior and the wound would correspond - and you'd almost surely find that in shootings of animals would you engage in a study of them when shot. If the wound was minor or in a place that did not physically cause the animal to fall: it wouldn't.

But in fact humans do do that: fall for no physical reason. And humans also have much more sophisticated psychological mechanisms than deer, capable of reacting to memory rather than the moment, or to memories of images from TV and film of a shooting victim falling, or to creating instant connections between sensation and imagined results. Deer can't do any of that. And that's why humans falling down with no observable physical basis for doing so, must, in fact, fall down on the basis of psychological perception.

Without knowing you were doing so: your deer analogy supported the conclusion you wanted to dismiss.

Tape
July 24, 2011, 06:47 AM
HERES (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866)The original website that wrote the artical, Buckeye Firearms Association it has pictures and graphs if anyone is interested.

Tape
July 24, 2011, 07:52 AM
Fall down?

Stopping power?

In Honolulu a troop got out of a UH-1 helicopter which had landed on the side of a hill. The troop ran "up hill" and the rotor blade took his head off a cleanly as any guillotine. The body continued to run another 4 steps before falling.


was the head itself decapitated or was it from the neck up?

Prosser
July 24, 2011, 09:44 AM
Weird stuff, deer. How about a .475 LFN, at 1350 fps, 420 grains, that hits the ham, goes length wise, misses all vitals, yet the deer falls over, dead:confused:

Similar deer, has heart blown out with a .300 Magnum, yet goes 100 yards before falling over, dead.:confused:

It MUST be the TV...

Keep in mind that the FBI's box is restricted to service caliber weapons, and, they face some REALLY bad guys, and girls.

Also, I can't help but think that LEO had the perfect firearm, the .41 Magnum but it was removed from service for a number of reasons.

If you read inbetween the lines, you can see the FBI guys focused on one problem: In service calibers, with hollow point bullets, it's very difficult to come up with a combination that penetrates far enough for them, that ideal 18" of gello. It's pretty amazing how velocity combined with light hollow points limits penetration.

Loyalist Dave
July 24, 2011, 12:46 PM
No matter what gun you are shooting, you can only expect a little more than half of the people you shoot to be immediately incapacitated by your first hit.

Actually this is an erroneous conclusion, based on spurious information. First it is admitted that the projectile type was unknown. Other factors to consider:

Barrel length, some handgun bullet designs perform better at higher impact velocities, and longer barrels in some handguns increase MV and thus increase impact velocity.

Was the sample all from "gunfights" or did he include homicides?

Finally, what was the training level of the shooters? I have seen VAST differences between differing agencies of Law Enforcement, Law Abiding Citizens, Thugs, Peacetime Military, and Combat Vets when it comes to accuracy with a handgun under fire.

The study shows little about the type of handgun caliber, and more about the persons shooting (imho). It demonstrates that on average when people in the geographic area where the sample was taken shoot at a person, they have a 50% chance of "immediately incapacitating" the target. The problem with the data is that it includes people with little training and possibly those with a high level of training. (I know it includes people with little training, for the vast majority of gun owners would fall into what I would consider "little training" - my opinion)


Examine reports of 100 civilians who compete on a regular basis in IDPA, or TSA that have been involved in a fatal shooting, reports of 100 law enforcement officer fatal shootings, and reports of 100 folks involved in fatal shootings with only the basic knowledge of how to load and fire..., the data will skew toward the civilian competition shooters (again imho).

In short, it's not simply the cartridge that one uses for SD, but whether the person can hit what they shoot at. IF you want to be successful in an SD situation, you need a good, accurate cartridge/handgun..., and you need to train on a regular basis.

Which has been known for many decades. :D

LD

fastbolt
July 24, 2011, 04:02 PM
I remember when I was issued a copy of SA Patrick's Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness when it was still pretty new (back in '90). I had a bit less than a decade of LE experience at the time and was a brand new firearms instructor.

More than 20 years later I still consider it to be an excellent read (as a primer) and to have withstood the test of time.

THplanes
July 25, 2011, 04:01 AM
Since the surface area of the permanent wound cavity is a function of the permanent wound cavity's length and circumference, it is directly proportional to the volume of the permanent wound cavity (and its volumetric mass) and as such, is already accounted for in MacPherson's model.

No it's not, you are once again wrong. For the other instances we would have to go to another forum. Take a wound with a radius of r and a length of L.

The surface area and volume are

Sa = (pie)2rL
v = (pie)(r^2)L

If we double length we use 2L for the new length, the surface area and volume are

Sa = (pie)2r2L so the surface area has doubled
v = (pie)(r^2)2L so the volume has doubled


If we double the radius we use 2r for the new radius, the surface area and volume are

Sa = (pie)(2(2r))L so the surface area has doubled.
v= (pie)((2r)^2)L so the volume is increased by a factor of 4

This neglects the surface area for the ends of the cylinders. I believe that's reasonable because the entrance is a hole and holes don't bleed. If the bullet exits the same is true. For a bullet that does not exit you add (pie)r^2 to the surface area. For cases where L is large in comparison to r we can neglect this small area. This is usually the case for service caliber handgun rounds.

So if you double length of the wound track you get twice the surface area and twice the volume. If you double the radius of the wound you get double the surface area and four times the volume. Clearly there is not a direct relationship between volume and surface area. In the case where you double surface area by doubling the length of the wound you also get a doubling of the volume. In the case where you double the surface area by doubling the radius, you get four times the volume.

I don't really like this because I like the bigger bullets make bigger holes concept. This shows the increase in volume that comes from and increase in the radius of the wound overstates the relative increase in bleeding surface area.

I've just started reading MacPherson's book so i don't know how he covers this. But another problem is the new stelate shaped bullets. IMHO, the manufacturers seem to want us to infer the sharp tips will leave a larger wound. Do these bullets actually leave a stelate shaped wound which would also increase wound surface area.

481
July 25, 2011, 10:41 AM
No it's not, you are once again wrong. For the other instances we would have to go to another forum. Take a wound with a radius of r and a length of L.

The surface area and volume are

Sa = (pie)2rL
v = (pie)(r^2)L

If we double length we use 2L for the new length, the surface area and volume are

Sa = (pie)2r2L so the surface area has doubled
v = (pie)(r^2)2L so the volume has doubled


If we double the radius we use 2r for the new radius, the surface area and volume are

Sa = (pie)(2(2r))L so the surface area has doubled.
v= (pie)((2r)^2)L so the volume is increased by a factor of 4

This neglects the surface area for the ends of the cylinders. I believe that's reasonable because the entrance is a hole and holes don't bleed. If the bullet exits the same is true. For a bullet that does not exit you add (pie)r^2 to the surface area. For cases where L is large in comparison to r we can neglect this small area. This is usually the case for service caliber handgun rounds.

So if you double length of the wound track you get twice the surface area and twice the volume. If you double the radius of the wound you get double the surface area and four times the volume. Clearly there is not a direct relationship between volume and surface area. In the case where you double surface area by doubling the length of the wound you also get a doubling of the volume. In the case where you double the surface area by doubling the radius, you get four times the volume.

I don't really like this because I like the bigger bullets make bigger holes concept. This shows the increase in volume that comes from and increase in the radius of the wound overstates the relative increase in bleeding surface area.

I've just started reading MacPherson's book so i don't know how he covers this. But another problem is the new stelate shaped bullets. IMHO, the manufacturers seem to want us to infer the sharp tips will leave a larger wound. Do these bullets actually leave a stelate shaped wound which would also increase wound surface area.

Lighten up. :)

You are gonna pop a major blood vessel (or worse) with all that :cuss:

The proportionality that I described in one sentence (post #27) required several paragraphs and repetitive equations for you to duplicate it in your post (post #35).



So if you double length of the wound track you get twice the surface area and twice the volume. If you double the radius of the wound you get double the surface area and four times the volume. Clearly there is not a direct relationship between volume and surface area. In the case where you double surface area by doubling the length of the wound you also get a doubling of the volume. In the case where you double the surface area by doubling the radius, you get four times the volume.

You have contradicted yourself.

You say (highlighted red) there is no direct relationship between volume and surface area, yet you go on to describe (highlighted blue) four such direct relationships between volume and surface area. Which is it?

bassdogs
July 25, 2011, 05:01 PM
I recall a comment made by the instructor at my CC class a few years ago. He was the police chief of a small town nearby and noted that the shoot and the BG drops is pure Hollywood. When ask why he shot a bad guy 6 times during a gunfight, his response was "I ran out of bullets".

Think the real issue here is that when confronted with a threat to your life or well being, you should use what ever force you have at hand. Taking 1 or 2 shots and stopping to see if the BG is down might well get you killed. Arguing about 1 shot stopping power is really a fools folly. You're not going to walk around with a .50BMG so carry just about any service caliber and practice to be confident with it.

Prosser
July 25, 2011, 07:39 PM
There are options now which are packable, and pretty much WAY outside the service caliber
box.

Every guy that ever jumped me, and were not many, were huge, 240-300 pounds. Use something for that size animal, and, you are golden.

Loosedhorse
July 25, 2011, 10:32 PM
Sa = (pie)(2(2r))L Mmmmmmm. Pie. [Drool.]

The reason that mathematicians stay thin is they like pi, not pie. ;)

In any case, I am glad you cleared that up. I am sure if we explain that to anyone wounded with the right round, they will quickly realize they should be incapacitated, and will decide their only logical choice is to fall down.

THplanes
July 26, 2011, 01:20 AM
You have contradicted yourself.

You say (highlighted red) there is no direct relationship between volume and surface area, yet you go on to describe (highlighted blue) four such direct relationships between volume and surface area. Which is it?

Come on 481 don't play word games with me. There is a direct relationship between between change in surface area and change in volume only when the change is caused by increasing the length of the wound. When you change volume by increasing the radius of the wound the relationship of surface area to wound volume is exponential.

Prosser
July 26, 2011, 03:08 AM
Thanks for the link to the original. After reading that, I'm out. Rarely have I had a chance to read such garbage, at least since the S&M "Statistics".

You don't have the time to figure out which load? Give me a break. The entire story is about bullet weight, velocity, and bullet design, and, pretty much least, bullet caliber, unless you are comparing LFN's or cast bullets, and, we aren't smart enough to be doing that in that article.

All I have to say is that the old swiss rifle round, 300 grain soft lead, at 1300-1400 fps, in .41 caliber, was one of the most lethal rounds ever in combat.

Use that as a model, and, you might have something...:cuss:

2ndAmFan
July 26, 2011, 07:37 AM
My opinion, based on no science whatsoever is that a 124 grain 9mm Luger +p hp, traveling at an approximate velocity of 1200-1400 fps, placed properly should do the job. So would a lot of other rounds. Shot placement counts above all.

Mike1234567
July 26, 2011, 11:43 AM
In all my reasearch what I've learned is the most important thing is shot placement followed by penetration followed by would channel destruction. IMHO, .380 is a marginal round while a good 124gr 9mm HP is nearly as effective as a good 230gr .45 ACP HP. IMHO, since most folks won't be accurate enough in a SD situation to guarantee effective shot placement, then more destruction per shot is helpful. So... I keep a .410ga shotgun and .45 ACP handy at home but I carry a 9mm (only on my property and in my car until I attain my CHL).

TenMillimaster
July 26, 2011, 12:24 PM
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

I've posted that link before but plenty of good info there.
As far as incapacitation or stopping power, knockdown power go... I don't buy it, not one bit.
Energy is another acceptable way to look at wounding effectiveness IMO as long as you consider that there's plenty of other work a travelling projectile can do that isn't wounding.

As far as the site the OP posted, I don't consider any of that statistically reliable, as it's still a collection of anecdotes. No control over conditions and unreliable data. Aren't there some studies that have used live pigs? I'd trust information gleaned from them much more.

2zulu1
July 26, 2011, 07:00 PM
No it's not, you are once again wrong. For the other instances we would have to go to another forum. Take a wound with a radius of r and a length of L.

The surface area and volume are

Sa = (pie)2rL
v = (pie)(r^2)L

If we double length we use 2L for the new length, the surface area and volume are

Sa = (pie)2r2L so the surface area has doubled
v = (pie)(r^2)2L so the volume has doubled


If we double the radius we use 2r for the new radius, the surface area and volume are

Sa = (pie)(2(2r))L so the surface area has doubled.
v= (pie)((2r)^2)L so the volume is increased by a factor of 4

This neglects the surface area for the ends of the cylinders. I believe that's reasonable because the entrance is a hole and holes don't bleed. If the bullet exits the same is true. For a bullet that does not exit you add (pie)r^2 to the surface area. For cases where L is large in comparison to r we can neglect this small area. This is usually the case for service caliber handgun rounds.

So if you double length of the wound track you get twice the surface area and twice the volume. If you double the radius of the wound you get double the surface area and four times the volume. Clearly there is not a direct relationship between volume and surface area. In the case where you double surface area by doubling the length of the wound you also get a doubling of the volume. In the case where you double the surface area by doubling the radius, you get four times the volume.

I don't really like this because I like the bigger bullets make bigger holes concept. This shows the increase in volume that comes from and increase in the radius of the wound overstates the relative increase in bleeding surface area.

I've just started reading MacPherson's book so i don't know how he covers this. But another problem is the new stelate shaped bullets. IMHO, the manufacturers seem to want us to infer the sharp tips will leave a larger wound. Do these bullets actually leave a stelate shaped wound which would also increase wound surface area.
Would you agree with this assessment?


While sectional density is part of the overall terminal performance picture, that parameter is "redefined" at/during expansion. Penetration depth is inversely proportional to the expanded cross-sectional area of the recovered bullet and directly proportional to the velocity of the bullet at the instant of impact. The dimension of the frontal area of the expanded bullet induces drag (effectively behaving as a "brake" as it traverses the media) and when this dimension increases (final expansion diameter) drag increases by the square of the difference in the expanded radius which is effectively ΔA = πΔr2


Therefore, while the effect of the difference between the 10mm's and the .45's final expanded diameter might seem insignificant, it isn't.

The sectional density for each respective round decreases significantly and the one that expands proportionately less than the other gains an advantage in its 'new' and somewhat greater sectional density.

Numerically speaking, the 10mm's sectional density decreases from 0.16071 to 0.05278 (33% of its prior sectional density) and the sectional density of the .45 decreases from 0.16118 to 0.07105 (44% of its prior SD) allowing the .45 load to destroy 6.25% more soft tissue and penetrate 1.33 inches farther/deeper than the 10mm despite the 10mm load's greater KE (+214 fpe/ +53% more than the .45).

This phenomena clearly demonstrates why a "momentum" model is a better means of quantifying hard terminal ballistic performance than an "energy" model.

10mm 180 gr. Remington Golden Sabre JHP
Impact velocity: 1243 fps/618fpe
Average recovered diameter: 0.698"

Vcav = 389.302 fps
Mw = 58.906 grams (2.078 ounces)
Xcm = 33.361 cm (13.134 inches)

.45ACP Winchester Bonded PDX1 230 gr. JHPImpact velocity: 889 fps (404fpe)
Average recovered diameter: 0.680"

Vcav = 392.366 fps
Mw = 62.603 grams (2.208 ounces)
Xcm = 36.748 cm (14.468 inches)



Bob

I'm3rd
July 26, 2011, 07:14 PM
I suspect that there are many more factors involved in the way a bullet wound stops an attacker or fails to stop him than the diameter, weight, velocity, metal type, and design of the bullet itself. I think that in many cases the shooting victim's mental, physical, and/or emotional state at the time he is shot probably has as much, or maybe more positive or negative affect on his ability to continue fighting as the actual physical damage to his body does. When non-ballistic factors such as drugs, alcohol, fear, rage, pain tolerance, overall health, personality, etc are stirred into the equation the wounding effect of the bullet itself may not be the primary factor that determines it's good, so-so, or poor stopping power.

Now after having said all that, I will admit that if I knew, or even strongly suspected that I would be involved in a shooting incident tonight I would be carrying my 1911 .45 instead of my Keltec .380 when I leave home.

Cosmoline
July 26, 2011, 07:25 PM
According to those data, I should carry a shotgun everywhere. So....

Or a rifle, absolutely. But you probably can't, which is the only reason for a handgun.

Within the range of typical CCW pieces--from .45 ACP to .32 ACP, it probably doesn't make that much difference which you use.

481
July 26, 2011, 07:37 PM
Come on 481 don't play word games with me.

Given the events of the past twenty-four hours (let's leave it at that for the sake of discretion), I have engaged in no "word games" with you simply because there is no point in provoking you.

I quoted your post (presently post #35) in its entirety and then highlighted (in "red" and "blue") the relevant portion of the post to which I was referring to specifically for the sake of clarity. It is all there (albeit in "red" and "blue") just as you typed it.

If you wish to retreat from any part (or all) of the self-contradictory statements made in your post, you certainly don't need my permission.

Strykervet
July 26, 2011, 07:52 PM
I read an article written by an ex-cop murder detective turned pathologist. He carried a 9mm the whole time he was a cop. When he started working in the morgue and seeing all the gunshot victims in Atlanta, he switched to the .45ACP. He said most of the time, 9mm victims had multiple gunshot wounds, whereas the .45ACP victims tended to have just one or two wounds. Not to mention the difference in damage caused by the round.

I like the 10mm myself. 9mm is fun for the range and useful for reduced recoil and/or high capacity. But I think once you hit .40S&W and .357mag, you are in the realm of true defensive rounds where provided you hit your target and use a suitable loading it will do the job almost as good as the next. Some are better for certain shots, ie, high velocity and energy work better on nerves whereas fat heavy and slow bullets work better at breaking bones and punching holes.

And that is why I like the 10mm. As fast as a .357mag but makes bigger holes with heavier bullets, greater sectional density and better ballistic coefficient than .45ACP. Greater kinetic energy than both, and more capacity than both.

Could it be the perfect round, dare I say?

Prosser
July 26, 2011, 09:32 PM
NO. Doesn't do heavy bullets well enough. .451 Detonics, or .45 Colt/.454 low end rounds, yes. :D

Double Naught Spy
July 27, 2011, 10:09 AM
In Honolulu a troop got out of a UH-1 helicopter which had landed on the side of a hill. The troop ran "up hill" and the rotor blade took his head off a cleanly as any guillotine. The body continued to run another 4 steps before falling.

LOL, no.

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting Stopping Power article/study" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!