Stopping power - top loads for each caliber


PDA






flyskater
January 6, 2012, 07:16 AM
Saw this
http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=0

States that a 223 has better stopping power than 357 mag or 45 acp based on actual shootings. I would think an expanding 357 or 45 would make bigger holes than a 223 and thus more lethal. (even a fragmenting 223)

How credible is that data? I don't want to open up another can of worms, but I found the site accidently as I was in the market for a PLR-16. (yeah 9" barrel = less velocity).

If you enjoyed reading about "Stopping power - top loads for each caliber" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Deus Machina
January 6, 2012, 08:44 AM
Well, yes, an expanding .357 or .45 make larger holes, at say .5 and .75.
But the .223 has far more energy. Enough that it actually does impose hydrostatic force, resulting in a .223 hole--surrounded by hamburger.

The 2000 FPS a .223 has over a .45 really does make a heck of a difference on the effectiveness. If a bullet at 2700fps upsets inside tissue, the energy isn't contained almost entirely to the lead, as it is (generally) with handgun rounds. Dumping that much energy inside something makes for a serious mess.

Gunnerboy
January 6, 2012, 11:30 AM
shoot someone with a 223 watch em shoot back , shoot someone with a 45 watch em hit the deck dead ... pretty simple to me

fallout mike
January 6, 2012, 11:37 AM
Gunnerboy, are you serious?

627PCFan
January 6, 2012, 11:39 AM
Someone insert the beating a dead horse icon.

.357 125 grains seems to be standard (pretty much anything in .357 or above does the job quite well.
.45 ACP with the 230 grains is a fav among many.

Sam1911
January 6, 2012, 11:42 AM
"Stopping Power" is a hotly debated idea that appears to be more wishful thinking than fact.

Regarding that listing...

http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm

Evan Marshall has been a bad joke to almost every technically trained person ever since his earliest articles on his "data base" were published.1 Ed Sanow has been part of this act since at least 1992 when Marshall & Sanow's first jointly authored book was published.2 Statistical analyses of this "data base" was the source of the certainty that this Marshall & Sanow "data base" was nonsense.

357 Terms
January 6, 2012, 12:11 PM
But the .223 has far more energy. Enough that it actually does impose hydrostatic force, resulting in a .223 hole--surrounded by hamburger

This!


A hangun round is a handgun round, A rifle round is something quite different.

Skribs
January 6, 2012, 12:59 PM
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

This indicated to me just how big the difference is. Another thing is that at 2500+ FPS, it is a lot easier to control what the bullet does than at 1000 FPS.

One of the things, too, that I've read is that with a .223, sufficient velocity is necessary to achieve decent results. I don't remember the exact number off-hand, but in general an 18-20" barrel works good out to the listed effective range (Army application), a 14.5-16" barrel works good in short-to-medium range (hence, good for CQB or HD, not as good on the guy 400 yards away), and the shorter barrels start to lose effectiveness.

This is specifically for the ammo the military uses. I believe heavier ammo would have better results.

Stophel
January 6, 2012, 01:18 PM
Rifles are not magic wands either.

Loosedhorse
January 6, 2012, 01:47 PM
Evan Marshall has been a bad joke to almost every technically trained person ever since his earliest articles on his "data base" were published.1 Ed Sanow has been part of this act since at least 1992 when Marshall & Sanow's first jointly authored book was published.2 Statistical analyses of this "data base" was the source of the certainty that this Marshall & Sanow "data base" was nonsense. Technical reviews rarely contain the terms "bad joke" and "nonsense;" however, they are common terms in hatchet-jobs.

Perhaps an anti-stopping power reference that at least pretends to be objective would be more helpful? :)

Sam1911
January 6, 2012, 01:55 PM
Heh. Perhaps. You'd have to take that up with Duncan MacPherson and the journal Wound Ballistics Review.

However heated his introduction may be, the editors let it stand.

Sometimes very pointed language is a warning sign that the conclusions drawn by the author are based on something other than fact.

On the other hand, these days we seem to have shyed away from stating things unambiguously and with conviction.

You'll have to read the published study to decide which you think describes Mr. MacPherson.

Loosedhorse
January 6, 2012, 02:15 PM
Sometimes very pointed language is a warning sign that the conclusions drawn by the author are based on something other than fact.Well said! However, I would say it is more likely that someone has decided to emphasize only the facts that fit his belief; and wants to make sure that others "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." (Perhaps a version of cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance), a very stubborn human frailty.)

I have read "Letters to the Editor" wars in various professional journals where the urbane "my respected colleague" is understood to mean something very different--which you will likely get in its pure form if you talk to the author. :D

However, yes: I find the general "you're stupid and your mother's stupid, too" tenor of the "stopping power" vs. "penetration is king" debate very odd. It is designed not to persuade by data, but convince by emotion. Such rhetorical ruses have a fine tradition, but don't really belong (IMHO) in any discussion that claims to be scientific.

To the extent that someone who is a "professional scientist" engages in such verbal tactics, I place the blame on him: such a person should know the rules.

mljdeckard
January 6, 2012, 02:30 PM
Deus Machina is absolutely correct.

Gunnerboy, take some gallon milk jugs full of water out and shoot them with .45 and .223. (Or my favorite, 22-250.) The .45 will rupture and splatter them. The high-velocity bullets of the .223 will make them explode. Yes, between handgun bullets, the .45 makes a bigger hole. But compared to RIFLE bullets, no, they don't.

Gunnerboy
January 6, 2012, 02:32 PM
who cares about the size of the hole its the fact that its combat proven that a 45 is far more effective in stopping power than a 223 and im not talking about ranges of 300m or 100m but effective ranges for both.

Sam1911
January 6, 2012, 02:34 PM
To the extent that someone who is a "professional scientist" engages in such verbal tactics, I place the blame on him: such a person should know the rules.


No argument there! His tone doesn't help establish the truth of his position.

So what did you think of the evidence he presented and the conclusions he drew?

Sam1911
January 6, 2012, 02:35 PM
who cares about the size of the hole its the fact that its combat proven that a 45 is far more effective in stopping power than a 223 and im not talking about ranges of 300m or 100m but effective ranges for both.


Is it? What data are you using to establish this?

627PCFan
January 6, 2012, 02:38 PM
Are you implying that 45's produce more rapid death than .223?

Shadow 7D
January 6, 2012, 02:39 PM
Wait, not the
MARKETING BS
again

rounds work in very un-mysterious ways
a bullets maximum 'knock down' or 'stopping power'
is no more than the equal force it exerts on YOU specifically your hand during recoil

Best bet is to choose a modern bullet construction in the caliber of your choice
then
PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE
so you can hit what you shoot at.

that's stopping power, putting rounds on target.

Shadow 7D
January 6, 2012, 02:43 PM
Sam, he must be talking about those secret .223 pistols they have been issuing everybody in the army, you know the ones that are SO secret we've never heard of them...

rifle=apple
handgun=orange

now let the comparisons begin...

mljdeckard
January 6, 2012, 02:50 PM
I didn't get one. :(

Sam1911
January 6, 2012, 02:50 PM
Sam, he must be talking ...
I just wanted to know which of the various studies he was using to support his claim that the .45 is combat-proven to stop someone faster/better/more deader than the 5.56 round?

Rifle or pistol really doesn't matter, I don't think. Just curious what data set supports his argument, that's all.

Loosedhorse
January 6, 2012, 02:52 PM
So what did you think of the evidence he presented and the conclusions he drew? I'm not good at statistics.

I do know that if I flip a coin once, and get a heads, there's only a 50% chance that that would have happened. I flip again, and get (after the heads) tails; now, there's only a 25% I would have gotten those in that sequence.

Let's say I flip the coin 10 times in all, and record my findings. A statistician comes along, looks it over, and says: "You know, there's less than one chance in 1000 that the coin flips would have actually come out THAT way. YOU'RE LYING!"

;)

I'd need someone with more stats background to help me determine whether MacPherson's analysis is like that.

Also, the database is very mysterious. I don't know if some shootings in the original database were later removed or reclassified (when additional details about some shootings were revealed, or simple key-punch errors removed). If MacPherson assumes that this did not happen, then subsequent changes in the data would be very hard to explain, and would appear statistically unlikely to happen from simple addition of new cases (as opposed to new cases plus amending the older data).

And that is also a mark against M&S, for keeping the data-base closed to independent, detailed scrutiny--mistakes, amendments, and all.

Gunnerboy
January 6, 2012, 02:58 PM
Mr. sam why dont you ask some Vietnam Vets thier oppinion on the stopping power of the 223 vs the 45 and if you dont understand then , you can ask some of the special forces of today what they would prefer in a house sweep im not talking about guns here but the rounds themselves so none of this " an AR has 30 rnds and a 1911 has 8 " stuff
sure a 223 will do better at 400 yds than a 45 but a 45 will beat a 223 hands down at 10yds every time.

Sam1911
January 6, 2012, 03:06 PM
Mr. sam why dont you ask some Vietnam Vets thier oppinion on the stopping power of the 223 vs the 45 and if you dont understand then ,I've read quite a bit about how the M16 and 5.56 performed in Vietnam and since.

Unfortunately, "go ask some vets" merely produces and perpetuates more hearsay, and we're trying to get away from that.

you can ask some of the special forces of today what they would prefer in a house sweepReally? Do you know any I could talk to? Seems when we sent in a team to take down the single most significant and high-profile target in existence during our lifetimes, and we sent a team with the ability to choose any weapon they wished to fulfill the mission, they took 5.56 carbines.

I don't want to argue with you, but I do want to see something concrete beyond, "common knowledge." The only truism that can be applied to "common knowledge" is that is is usu sally wrong.

mljdeckard
January 6, 2012, 03:06 PM
Did occur to you that there are plenty of people in this forum who don't NEED to ask?

Um....NO, IT WON'T.

Jason_W
January 6, 2012, 03:17 PM
The sample groups used in the chart the OP linked to are all pretty small and vary widely. Is it really valid to compare a sample of 40 .223 shootings to a sample of 641 .357 shootings? Additionally, such a study doesn't factor in incidents in which multiple rounds hit their target when one would have sufficed. For example, if a target was stopped by a rapid double-tap it's not technically a one shot stop, but that does not necessarily mean the round in question lacked the power to inflict a one shot stop.

That being said, a 98% one shot stop rate vs. a 96% one shot stop rate seems like hair splitting, IMO.

Shadow 7D
January 6, 2012, 03:22 PM
Damn, were did I misplace my nam vet...
Lots of them around here
**hint**
you might just be talking to some right here in this thread...

so, go get some FACTS (like the original issue of m16 were issued with the WRONG powder and without cleaning kits)

and that once soldiers were trained on weapons maintenance and the quirks of their new rifle, it's had a 50 year service record and is one of the longest if not the longest serving US long gun. Gees, must be broke.

Also read an interesting study by a West Point cadet or masters, I forget, but military officer, in conjunction with the AMU, he was prior service, that pointed to the most common 'failing' of the M16 family is the ballistics of the 5.56 round were you are shooting 16" high at 200M, when the weapon is zeroed for 300m.

So gunner boy, since half the guys commenting on this thread are vets, what are you, cause you are putting stuff out there that is PURE opinion.

JohnBiltz
January 6, 2012, 03:24 PM
The switch from pistol caliber carbines to 5.56 carbines among SWAT teams seems to be pretty clear evidence of what professionals think has the better stopping power.

Shadow 7D
January 6, 2012, 03:26 PM
Jason the entire premise of those studies have been debased, besides the fact that M/S refused to release their data sets, and NOBODY has been able to reproduce the same results, the fact that they ONLY looked at situations were a SINGLE shot stuck the person, and excluded the rest (the majority of shootings BTW)

Trying quantify the 'best' stopping round is difficult, not made easier by the likes of Courtney and Courtney or MS, people that many in ballistics consider hacks at best.

click clack
January 6, 2012, 03:29 PM
Gunnerboy, are you serious?

Haha, + 1

And "go ask some vets"... a couple of old bad asses that will tell me that the .45 killed the charlie real well is by no means credible. Do some research before making such ludicrous posts

Loosedhorse
January 6, 2012, 03:36 PM
a 45 will beat a 223 hands down at 10yds every time.I'm pretty sure I'd rather be hit by a .45 FMJ than a .223 40 gr varmint HP.

Not that I think I'd survive either, but the .223 might give me a lot more to think about.

flyskater
January 6, 2012, 05:49 PM
The switch from pistol caliber carbines to 5.56 carbines among SWAT teams seems to be pretty clear evidence of what professionals think has the better stopping power.
Based on history, law enforcement like firearms with very little recoil to increase follow up shots thus making it easier during training. MP5 9mm, ARs'. Of course they use 5.56 to defeat the BG body armor.

Skribs
January 6, 2012, 06:07 PM
9mm carbines have virtually no recoil. However, the MP5 is being replaced by the M4 in many police squads. If the .45 were better, it would have been replaced with the UMP-45.

One_Jackal
January 6, 2012, 06:15 PM
Stopping power has a lot to do with hitting the target. A 22 LR between the eyes will stop an attacker as fast as any caliber.

45_auto
January 6, 2012, 06:47 PM
Stopping power has a lot to do with hitting the target. A 22 LR between the eyes will stop an attacker as fast as any caliber.

What do you do if he's not looking directly at you, but looking down at your kid he's raping or beating the heck out of? Do you wait until you see the "whites of his eyes" before you start shooting?

One_Jackal
January 6, 2012, 06:53 PM
I was just making the point that shot placement is much more important than the caliber of your weapon. Most self defense situations happen at a range where you can see the "whites of their eyes."

mljdeckard
January 6, 2012, 07:58 PM
Onejackal, not necessarily.

The head is a bad place to shoot for ANY pistol bullet. It's made of cavities and weird angles. A .22 is unpredictable to begin with, and if you hit at any weird angle, it may fail to penetrate at all. I suppose if you can get the bad guy to stand perfectly still, in profile, and put one straight through his temple, it has a high likelihood of stopping him from doing what he was doing. (Standing perfectly still. Not threatening you.

In real life, perfect shooting is somewhere between difficult and impossible. One or both of you is probably moving. You may already be wounded. Your weak hand may be compromised for a number of reasons and you are shooting one-handed. You may be in very dark conditions. Or having different illumination on your sights than the target.

Of course I would like to slow-fire three through the ten ring. In real life, I want to get as many in the eight ring as possible, repeat as necessary. One of those bullets will eventually hit something the bad guy needs to keep moving.

trex1310
January 7, 2012, 04:30 PM
Unfortunately, "go ask some vets" merely produces and perpetuates more hearsay, and we're trying to get away from that.

I'm a Vietnam vet and what I've done personally and seen with my own eyes
isn't heresay unless you're calling me a liar. As for the subject
matter, it is silly to think the .45acp has more deadly effect than the
.223. I have seen many, many enemy combatants drop dead from one
round from the .223. The .45acp, in a combat situation, has an effective range of about 50 yards. I think you owe all the Vietnam vets an apology
for insinuating that their experiences aren't truthful.

Skribs
January 7, 2012, 05:34 PM
Trex, hearsay is unverified or unofficial knowledge.
Heresy is something that is against the common doctrine.

Neither directly means liar. "The Earth is round" was once heresy. "I heard John got in a gunfight and shot 3 people" is hearsay. It might be true, but it's unverified. In your case, you might be relating your experiences as you remember them. But your experiences as you remember them are not documented.

In what you said, it is true that many dropped from one hit from .223. However, it is also true, from other sources that I've read, of many not dropping in one hit from .223. In fact, I remember reading the book 13 Cent Killers, in which they described a man that took several shots to the upper torso (from either a 7.62mm NATO or a .30-06, can't remember whether they using the M1D or an M14 in this scenario) before they were forced to take a headshot.

blarby
January 7, 2012, 05:39 PM
On the other hand, these days we seem to have shyed away from stating things unambiguously and with conviction.

Makes it such the fresher when we do.

Well said.

Deus Machina
January 7, 2012, 07:33 PM
n which they described a man that took several shots to the upper torso (from either a 7.62mm NATO or a .30-06, can't remember whether they using the M1D or an M14 in this scenario) before they were forced to take a headshot.

To be fair, that is true of almost any weapon.

It takes a shot directly to the nervous system to drop someone instantly. Otherwise, it requires a loss of oxygen (through a collapsed lung) or blood to bring someone down.

You canput as many .223 (or .308, in this case) holes in someone and turn the entirety of their organs into hamburger, and they can continue to fight until they run out of blood or you shoot them in the noggin. Rifle rounds of essentially any caliber almost universally drain better than handgun rounds.

IMO, the '.45 is power powerful than .223' argument came when rounds failed to fragment or upset for whatever reason, and would put .223 holes in someone, sans hamburgerification. In that case, yes, a .45 hole drains quicker than a .223 hole.

But a proper .223 (or any fast rifle round) is very likely to dump energy violently and thus destroy much more flesh than the actual size of the bullet, while a .45 (or any other handgun round) is very unlikely to do any considerable damage to anything it's not actively poking a hole in.

gym
January 8, 2012, 12:57 AM
Not likelly a 45 will out do a 223. Having both, the 223 leaves the barrel at 3000fps, vs the 800 from the 45, It's the wound channel that kills you with a rifle. 45 is a great pistol caliber, but it sure ain't a rifle. Pistols are just to get you to your rifle, unless you are out and about town.

captain awesome
January 8, 2012, 02:34 AM
Go with the best of both worlds; 50 bmg is king! now if they only made it in a packable pistol.......

545days
January 8, 2012, 07:37 PM
Lets take another example: The M1 Carbine has more muzzle energy than a .357 magnum, yet the .357 is considered a proven manstopper, and the M1 Carbine had a poor reputation for stopping power. How can that be?

The answer is simple. The M1 carbine had poor stopping power when compared to the .30-06 M1 Garand RIFLE, while the .357 had great power when compared to the .38 S&W and .38 special REVOLVERS commonly in use at the time it was introduced. The M1 Carbine and .357 were never in the same "class" and were therefore never really in competition with each other.

The same thing is true when comparing the 5.56 and the .45 ACP. The 5.56 is percieved as weak because it was compared to the .308 M14, while the .45 is seen as powerful because it was compared to the .38 Special.

That said, comparing a rifle cartridge to a pistol cartridge is exactly the sort of silly subject that churns up all sorts of discussion on an internet forum.

One_Jackal
January 9, 2012, 01:35 AM
@mljdeckard I am an avid squirrel hunter. I have taken numerous large bucks with a .22 while looking for squirrels. Deer bones are much denser than human bones. Yet a .22 CCI mini mag goes right thru both shoulder blades, putting the deer running on his chin. If the deer was standing still a head shot drops the deer without fail.

If a .22 downs a 200lb deer that well it will certainly put a human down. I am not saying a .22 is the best large game rifle or the best self self defense weapon. I am saying it's capable of doing the job. The .22 is the weapon of choice for hit men. The .22 has killed more people than all other calibers combined - this is a fact confirmed by FBI stats.

Shadow 7D
January 9, 2012, 02:13 AM
The head is a bad place to shoot for ANY pistol bullet. It's made of cavities and weird angles. A .22 is unpredictable to begin with, and if you hit at any weird angle, it may fail to penetrate at all

People have been shot point blank in the head with a .357 and had the bullet deflect around the skull only to exit where the through and through would have likely. I know of one EMT who saw it Husband in a DV, shot by his wife, and read a number of accounts, including one where the round was a .40 S&W, the second hardest bone in your body is your forehead, and remember tanks, with their armor, it's ALL about the angles.

Zombiphobia
January 9, 2012, 02:46 AM
there's been a rumor going around that SOF soldiers posing in photographs for news articles or whatever pose with standard M9's and M16's simply to boost confidence in regualr soldiers. They think "o boy if that guy would use it, it must be great!"

It's propoganda is all. However, if those guys did, indeed, carry 5.56 and 9mm weapons by choice it was most likely simply for the advantage of higher ammo capacity not knowing how many enemy combatants they'd encounter. Not sure, but neither would my first choice except in superior weapons systems with high ammo capacity and an m16 and derivatives aren't usually on that list for me.

However, 5.56Nato rounds have also been known to do a lot of tumblind and making some crazy paths once they hit a human body. This makes up(some) for the lack of expanding rounds and are much harder to treat causing the enemy to use up more valuable man-power and resources treating the casualty and it gives us a chance to take prisoners for possible intel collection.

That said, I'd rather have a high-powered rifle in ANY cartridge at any range than a handgun. It's called a back-up weapon for a reason; it's BACK UP. And I'd rather have a
.45 than a 9mm.

Hydro-static shock(damage caused by projectile path, and think temp cavity damage which is more significant than it gets credit for)- tissue damage x Terminal energy transfer(how much energy is transfered to the target upon impact) which is a factor in knocking the other guy down and these two factors coupled with organ damage is what equates the effictiveness of a combat cartridge.

But sometimes the desired effect of the round isn't always the same for every situation.

Edit: Sorry for the typo's.

Shadow 7D
January 9, 2012, 02:55 AM
there's been a rumor going around that SOF soldiers posing in photographs for news articles or whatever pose with standard M9's and M16's simply to boost confidence in regualr soldiers. They think "o boy if that guy would use it, it must be great!"

It's propoganda is all. However, if those guys did, indeed, carry 5.56 and 9mm weapons by choice it was most likely simply for the advantage of higher ammo capacity not knowing how many enemy combatants they'd encounter. Not sure, but neither would my first choice except in superior weapons systems with high ammo capacity and an m16 and derivatives aren't usually on that list for me.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and...
YOU
would
KNOW this HOW

cause all the SF guys I hung with, when I was in the service, carried them, in a large part because they are common to all services.
they also get other guns, pretty much anything they want, but why would they carry the M4, cause it what they grew up with, it's 90% commonality to every other M16 no matter what the caliber etc. Gees guy, have you even been in the Army or even in the military service??

WRONG

Zombiphobia
January 9, 2012, 03:07 AM
I said 'rumor'. geez guy, do you know how to read?

And Yeah I know a few in the Army Special Forces who hate the m16, but what you've said there also makes sense logistically, but given a choice, I don't really know many who take the m16 as their preferred weapon.

Nice how you cut out the rest of my post though just to make an argument with me.

mljdeckard
January 9, 2012, 03:20 AM
And how many of those deer and squirrels were.....shooting back?

I find your description of a .22 smashing through deer bones to be optimistic at best. It's not like I haven't killed more than a few things with .22s myself. After trying a few coyotes with a .22 mag, I quickly changed my mind and I've used .223 and 22-250 ever since.

Zombiphobia
January 9, 2012, 03:31 AM
um, On the .22 for deer issue, I've never heard from any trustworthy source of one beign dropped with a single body shot in their tracks. Complete pass-throughs are common enough, but not one-shot drops. head-shots yeah.

BTW, the individuals I hear these .22 deer shootings from are shady characters who I don't hunt with and they tend to lose a lot of deer and spend a good deal of time in jail., so people, please don't do crap like this.

I've done it once, hit my mark straight thru heart and lungs and the deer kept running. I found her 2 days later feeding buzzards with a complete pass-thru from my shot. I haven't done that since.

Shadow 7D
January 9, 2012, 03:47 AM
It's calling BS, BS when I see it
Sorry but, the SF guys I knew were some of the most professional, humble people I've met.
and some of their stories would raise the hairs right plumb OFF your neck,
but see, most of the stories they told were funny.

And they would be the LAST people doing propaganda to BS Joe about his weapon, they would rather teach you to shoot effectively. Oh, that excludes psyops, cause well, BS is their job.

Zombiphobia
January 9, 2012, 04:21 AM
I said, RUMOR...didn't say who I heard it from, and I said something about pictures for magazines or somethign and who knows maybe those guys chose what they had, maybe they were ordered to hold them for some other BS reason like 'just for appearances' who knows who cares?, I don't know OR care. Heck, maybe it WAS psyops, stop reading so much into this crap.

You've taken an innocent, BS piece of anecdotal conversation and turned it into a pissing contest on the internet.

JRH6856
January 9, 2012, 05:14 AM
You've taken an innocent, BS piece of anecdotal conversation and turned it into a pissing contest on the internet.

That seems to happen a lot when people post BS on the Internet.

Zombiphobia
January 9, 2012, 05:24 AM
well, maybe it IS BS. I didn't say I knew it to be fact now did I??

Why make such a big deal about it?

Sam1911
January 9, 2012, 07:53 AM
You've taken an innocent, BS piece of anecdotal conversation and turned it into a pissing contest on the internet.

...

well, maybe it IS BS. I didn't say I knew it to be fact now did I??
Why make such a big deal about it?


Best thing to do in the future is not to post rumors you heard from "somewhere." Plenty of that around as it is, and we have to field this stuff over and over again. These days, and especially here at THR, it's best to have either first-hand knowledge of that which you speak, or to have a credible reference -- a published source is best.

We discussed "hearsay" before, though I think the point was missed.

One set of definitions is:

hear·say:
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor.

What someone shares with you out of their experiences may be accepted (or not) as credible, if the source is trused. Once you've got the story, and you pass it along, etc,etc, it's like the "telephone" game.

We all know (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) about how Navy Ranger Airborne Seal Team Operators working for the CIA carry this, that, or the other thing when their mission is really critical, and none of them ever want to use the 5.56 for anything besides picking their teeth after they bite the heads off the sentry dogs, but they're forced to against their will by the Big Army suits, or they have to keep their weapons choices SO secret that it's just like it didn't really even happen.

... ;) ...

Idle chit-chat is fun, and I've got to admit the "publicity photo" angle is funnier than most I've read, but it does frustrate folks because stuff gets repeated over and over, and then folks "heard it somewhere" so it must be true.

Let's not do that.

Anyway, enough of all that. Looks like we've gone full way 'round the "stopping power" debate once more. Let's call it done. Tune in next week for the same discussion again...

If you enjoyed reading about "Stopping power - top loads for each caliber" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!