"Stopping Power" Study


PDA






wally
May 20, 2012, 01:37 PM
I think most here will find these conclusions heresy, Let the nit picking begin!

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

I am not really surprised by this data, I've always believed bullet placement trumps all other factors.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Stopping Power" Study" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JellyJar
May 20, 2012, 01:59 PM
Thank you very much for your long hard work.

I think you have pretty much nailed it!

Weevil
May 20, 2012, 02:08 PM
Interesting.

It's also interesting that although the differences are small the .357 seems to live up to it's reputation as the best of the best for "stopping power".

Owen Sparks
May 20, 2012, 02:10 PM
I am not really surprised by this data, I've always believed bullet placement trumps all other factors.


And the mind set of the person being shot is second.

Robert
May 20, 2012, 02:14 PM
I think most here will find these conclusions heresy
Stopping power has been long held as a "myth" by a good many shooter. I see far more people talking about shot placment than stopping power- whatever that is.

Dr. Detroit
May 20, 2012, 02:26 PM
...Let the nit picking begin...

The article is written by the same author who believes that students should be taught to disobey (at least sometimes) school lockdown protocols. (See that article here. (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8240))

I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong, only that his opinions (on both ammo stopping power and school lockdowns) are peculiar and deserve particularly careful evaluation.

Cheers,
Dr. Detroit

C0untZer0
May 20, 2012, 02:32 PM
Aside from being regurgitated Marshall & Sanow material, - redigested and re-regurgitated, Greg Ellifritz doesn't make sense.

The stuff he writes just doesn't makes sense.

I hope no one ever makes purchasing decisions based on his math.

Old judge creek
May 20, 2012, 02:32 PM
Well done, IMO.

9mmepiphany
May 20, 2012, 02:44 PM
I think most here will find these conclusions heresy, Let the nit picking begin!
Maybe I missed it.

Where is the heresy?
What is there to nit pick?
Why didn't I do my research paper on something this interesting?

I think this is pretty mainstream thinking among folks who actually pay attention to this kind of stuff

C0untZer0
May 20, 2012, 02:55 PM
What percentage of shooting incidents resulted in fatalities. For this, I included only hits to the head or torso.

Why would you do that and call it "fatalities" ? There are documented shootings where a person was shot in the leg and even though they received medical attention relatively quickly, and yet they died, even though they were still alive when they arrived at the ER.

This is another problem I have with Greg Ellifritz - his word bending definitions. If you are looking for some specific meaning from torso and head shots - then call it "Head or Torso hit fatalities".


- One shot stop percentage - number of incapacitations divided by the number of hits the person took. Like Marshall's number, I only included hits to the torso or head in this number.
OK here is the big problem here, One shot stop means - One. It is a discrete event. You have to define the event and count how many times it occurs. You cannot have a "One shot stop percentage" that is the result of a number divided by another number.

jmr40
May 20, 2012, 03:14 PM
People have used dozens of different strategies to document or predict how effective different handguns will be for over 100 years. If you look at any of them, whether they be 1 shot stop percentages, ballistic gell, shooting live farm animals, or autopsie reports they all pretty much show the same results. Always have, even going back 100 years or more. Some would rather make their decisions based on urban myth than on facts.

bikerdoc
May 20, 2012, 03:18 PM
Stopping power is just that .You shoot until the threat has stopped. Not until you think it has stopped, but until it is stopped!

jimbo555
May 20, 2012, 06:40 PM
I just have to figure out how to conceal my m-1 garand!:D

Strange Bob
May 20, 2012, 07:42 PM
You can conceal that M1 Garand if you have long hollow legs.:D

I was most impressed by the .22 numbers. Guess I need to consider getting rid of my 629's and getting a couple of Buckmarks and k-22's.

Very interesting read and study of data to say the least.

Loosedhorse
May 20, 2012, 08:48 PM
Submitted by cbaus on Fri, 07/08/2011Okay.

I note the high number of shots on target/persons shot for 9mm. This is interpreted by the label "Average number of rounds until incapacitation" but that might not be so. It might be that 9mm shooters were putting follow-up shots on target fast enough that two or more shots would land before it became clear that the attack was over.

In other words, if you can rapidly put many shots on target, and have been trained to do that in an LE or SD scenario, then we should expect very few fights that end with one shot.

If, on the other hand, you use a round that prevents a quick follow-up shot, we should expect more one-shot stops (as you'll have more time between shots to notice that the fight is over). And indeed, we find that the .44 Mag (with which I'd expect the slowest follow-up shots) shows the most one shot stops, edging out even the shotgun.

Anyone want to guess how many one shot stops you get with a submachinegun? ;)

Vern Humphrey
May 20, 2012, 10:18 PM
Interesting.

For consistency purposes, they ONLY included hits to the torso and ONLY included cases where the person was hit with just a single round. Multiple hits screwed up their data, so they excluded them. This lead to an unrealistically high stopping power percentage, because it factored out many of the cases where a person didn't stop!
I've said this about Marshall and Sanow's study for years.

A much better standard would be Stops/Encounters. In other words, what percentage of fights did the good guys win with each cartridge studied?

Warp
May 20, 2012, 10:37 PM
There is way too much about Marshall/Sanow that I just don't like. I never use their numbers.

valnar
May 20, 2012, 10:56 PM
The best data from that study is to shoot and hit twice.

philoe
May 20, 2012, 11:08 PM
This study makes me carryin my. 32 look like a genius!! In all seriousness it would take a fool to look at any of these studies and take their conclusions over known ballistics on the calibers.

Skribs
May 20, 2012, 11:22 PM
I trust that his data is accurate, but I think there's more going on than just a change of caliber. .38 special had more than the 9mm, but the .38 has less power with the same diameter. What I think the difference here is with the .38 people are firing one or two shots, whereas with the 9mm they're firing three or four shots (or more) and thus skewing the data higher. You don't know if shot #1 or 2 would have stopped him because shot #3 was only a quarter second later.

Another interesting thing is the .22, average number of rounds before incap is really low (1.38, second only to shotguns), whereas the percentage of folks who were not incapacitated was higher than everything but .25 ACP and .32.

I'd also like to point out that the definition of "stop" includes both voluntary and involuntary stops, and voluntary stops are entirely random.

I guess a lot of this is shown in the discussion after the numbers, but it still does highlight the issues. I still believe, as I've posted in other threads, that due to the random nature of shootings, the only way to definitively lable the "stopping power" of different calibers and bullets is via high-end computer simulation, involving accurate ballistics, physics, and anatonmy.

Frank Ettin
May 20, 2012, 11:30 PM
I think this is the most significant data from the study (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866):

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/fiddletown_2006/Random%20for%20boards/Ellifritz_Failure_to_Incap.png

The assailants not incapacitated are the ones who can still hurt you.

And as Ellifritz says (emphasis added):

...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...

In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

This study makes me carryin my. 32 look like a genius!!...Not really. See above. The .32 failed to incapacitate more assailants than any other cartridge.

Swing
May 20, 2012, 11:32 PM
I just have to figure out how to conceal my m-1 garand!

LOL!

"'scuse me while I whip dis out."

C0untZer0
May 20, 2012, 11:43 PM
It's not nit picking - there are serious flaws in what Greg Ellifritz is presenting here.

How many people fight off an assailant the way you try to figure out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll lolipop?

Shoot once, see if the attacker is still coming... shoot twice, see if the attacker is still coming, shoot a third time and see if the attacker is still coming.

Greg Ellifritz also doesn't elaborae in this article on how he treats a shooting where 3 officers engage a single perpatrator.

I wonder if he's taken into account last weeks shooting in NYC where police officers fired 84 rounds at a suspect and hit him in non-vital places 7 or so times. Technically a few of those were torso hits, although the bullets didn't strike any vital organs.

I don't think anything usefull can be learned from his treatment of the data.

JEB
May 20, 2012, 11:48 PM
IMO, you did a great job compiling all that data. thank you

In other words, if you can rapidly put many shots on target, and have been trained to do that in an LE or SD scenario, then we should expect very few fights that end with one shot.

If, on the other hand, you use a round that prevents a quick follow-up shot, we should expect more one-shot stops (as you'll have more time between shots to notice that the fight is over). And indeed, we find that the .44 Mag (with which I'd expect the slowest follow-up shots) shows the most one shot stops, edging out even the shotgun.


very good point. i had never looked at it that way.

GunnerShotz
May 21, 2012, 01:58 AM
"Anyone want to guess how many one shot stops you get with a submachinegun?"
Nice one LoosedHorse! ;)

It's an incredibly valuable compilation of data worth consideration! What Anyone needs to remember IMHO is that the variables of actual case studies like these (and then the definitions used to define them) will inevitably skew any conclusive results for Anyone to make Any conclusively accurate and broad statement like "caliber A is going to Stop a perp better than caliber B". So, personally, I would never draw such a broad conclusion from such a study.

If there are 456 9mm hits on (the defined) target vs 25 .32, how am I really supposed to conclude (based on numbers) which one is 'better' for the defined objective.... which I'm reading to be "immediate incapacitation" in this study. It just means that many more people used 9mm :)

Ellifritz did a nice job, and I'll be keeping it in mind, don't get me wrong...

There are just too many possible scenarios and variables (and definitions of said variables) to conclusively define "stopping power"..... unless of course I can get volunteers to attack me in the same way, every time, while I shoot them with progressively bigger calibers....

303tom
May 21, 2012, 02:35 AM
I carry a .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire, that is all I got to say................

coloradokevin
May 21, 2012, 02:48 AM
I note the high number of shots on target/persons shot for 9mm. This is interpreted by the label "Average number of rounds until incapacitation" but that might not be so. It might be that 9mm shooters were putting follow-up shots on target fast enough that two or more shots would land before it became clear that the attack was over.

In other words, if you can rapidly put many shots on target, and have been trained to do that in an LE or SD scenario, then we should expect very few fights that end with one shot.


I agree, and was thinking the same thing as I read the article. The 9mm is also commonly carried by military/LE officers, and these folks are usually trained/experienced enough to fire follow-up shots.

I regularly participate in force-on-force training scenarios at work (active shooters, hostage, etc) where we use Simunitions against the opposing "bad guys". The bad guys were supposed to react as if shot once they took hits, but you'd often see officers fire to slide lock before the "bad guy" could fall (again, not real bullets here, but a demonstration of the idea I'm speaking of).

Similarly, I've seen the same thing play out in officer-involved shootings on the street. Some officers fire just one round, others dump their magazine. A trained shooter can certainly put more than one bullet into their adversary before the adversary reacts to the first hit. As such, there's really no way to accurately measure how many shots it took to incapacitate the bad guy... he could have been hit 5 times, even if the first shot might have done the trick all by itself.

coalman
May 21, 2012, 02:57 AM
I think most here will find these conclusions heresy, Let the nit picking begin!

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

I am not really surprised by this data, I've always believed bullet placement trumps all other factors.

More of the same stuff here. It's often the same: 1) Person selects 9mm or is getting tired of hauling around or paying more to shoot .45acp, then 2) Finds through objective detailed exhaustive analysis that the modern 9mm is in fact equal to the .45acp s/he gave up, or wants to. Problem solved, conveniently, and s/he sleeps better at night with 9mm.

mljdeckard
May 21, 2012, 03:03 AM
Of course shot placement trumps everything.

Here's the problem. In real life, the bad guy won't stand still for you to hit him repeatedly center of mass. For most of us, when we are on the two-way range, we are doing well to get hits at all. Even police miss plenty. What this means is, you don't want to leave anything more than is necessary to poor performance. Sure a .22 will kill with the right hit. So will a heavy needle, if you can nail the jugular with it consistently. As much as I try, I don't shoot like Todd Jarrett. I'm getting better, but I doubt I will ever be that good.

Yes, perfect hits with any round will end the fight. But you can't take for granted you will get perfect hits. I will use the rounds that will cause the most tissue damage no matter where I hit.

JRH6856
May 21, 2012, 03:29 AM
Originally Posted by Loosedhorse
I note the high number of shots on target/persons shot for 9mm. This is interpreted by the label "Average number of rounds until incapacitation" but that might not be so. It might be that 9mm shooters were putting follow-up shots on target fast enough that two or more shots would land before it became clear that the attack was over.

In other words, if you can rapidly put many shots on target, and have been trained to do that in an LE or SD scenario, then we should expect very few fights that end with one shot.

I agree, and was thinking the same thing as I read the article. The 9mm is also commonly carried by military/LE officers, and these folks are usually trained/experienced enough to fire follow-up shots.

And I wonder how many of those LE/Military incidents involved automatic weapons. That could get the round count up pretty quickly.

mdauben
May 21, 2012, 10:56 AM
I think this is the most significant data from the study:

<SNIP GRAPH>

The assailants not incapacitated are the ones who can still hurt you.


I'm tempted to like this graph, as it seems to validate my own opinion that once you meet a minimum "threashold" (IMO, around .38spl or 9mm) all SD calibers are pretty equal. The problem is, I find the rest of the "researcher's" statistics so questionable, that I really don't feel I can put much more faith in this result, than in anything else he wrote. :(

SlamFire1
May 21, 2012, 11:19 AM
Very interesting study.

I have heard it said that modern firearms are not as lethal as those bladed weapons up to the Renaissance. Getting an arm or leg cut off is immediately incapacitating and anyone hit on the head with the spike or pole end of a Halberd is going down for the big count.

Maybe our weapons are retrogressive.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/swords/Halberd.jpg

Rampant_Colt
May 21, 2012, 11:58 AM
What a load of useless rubbish. From a scientific point of view, this very flawed "alternate study" has more holes in it than the patterning board at the shotgun range.

According to this train wreck of a study, the .380 ACP is the equal of the .40 S&W and surpasses the 9mm, .38 Special, .357 Mag/Sig, and .45 ACP in one-shot stops. The .32 ACP surpasses the .38 Special and 9mm in one-shot stops. Note how the .357 Magnum and .357 Sig are lumped together into one statistic.

I hope this thread gets locked

Skribs
May 21, 2012, 11:59 AM
It's a lot easier to hit with a bullet than with a halberd.

And you apparently missed Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail. It took 4 hits to incapacitate the Black Knight.

C0untZer0
May 21, 2012, 12:28 PM
On average, how many rounds did it take for the person to stop his violent action or be incapacitated? For this number, I included hits anywhere on the body

Why would a glancing shot to the ribs with a .22 or .45 or anything else for that matter tell me anything except that shooting an attacker in a non-vital spot isn't likely to "stop" them? Gathering that kind of data doesn't yield a lot of useful information.

If I delivered a few glancing shots to the ribs, a few through the left bicep, a few in the buttocks with a .45 and the attacker knocked me down and beat me senseless... I wouldn't say the .45 round is ineffective.

On the other hand if that happens with COM shots... I'd say, yes that round is ineffective.

You can present both com and non com shot incapacitation data and just put the info out there - but he doesn't.

Certaindeaf
May 21, 2012, 01:21 PM
I tell people to not use ball ammo. Cops and hunters don't use ball ammo. On the other hand, a (most all) 240 gr .44 mag hp will zip right on through an elk let alone a man. Don't use ball in anything bigger than a .25.. but many do. Anyway.

Cosmoline
May 21, 2012, 01:34 PM
Some interesting results, but I have my doubts that the underlying data is detailed enough to truly support the level of detail in the conclusions. That's not an attack on the study, but the fact is that we are forced to rely on a hodge-podge of hearsay accounts and after-the-fact recollections to try to draw conclusions. Of course the coroner's reports would be more precise, but they obviously select only for the dead ones. Medical records for those who survive are locked down and impossible to obtain through any ordinary means.

It's a noble effort and shows some interesting trends, but to really do this there would need to be a much more detailed study with full access to participant's records. The only place I could see that happening would be inside the military, but there you'd also have national security and other access problems.

Of course these same problems have prevented pretty much *ANY* similar attempts from being much better. None of them are truly scientific, because the data simply isn't reliable enough.

the .380 ACP is the equal of the .40 S&W and surpasses the 9mm, .38 Special, .357 Mag/Sig, and .45 ACP in one-shot stops. The .32 ACP surpasses the .38 Special and 9mm in one-shot stops. Note how the .357 Magnum and .357 Sig are lumped together into one statistic.

Actually it sounds about right. The physical impact of all these rounds is very similar, with rounds hitting from around 200 to 400 ft. lbs. The .32 ACP is an anomaly, probably the result of a too-small sample size. Or there could be some other self-selection factor involved.

To the extent the study undermines the obsessive fixation on one handgun round over another, and emphasizes the importance of placement, I think it's a useful one.

Think of it this way. Though the study's data is unreliable, if something like a .45 ACP were indeed dramatically more effective than a .32 ACP, that would be something that even newspaper accounts and other hearsay reports would tend to show.

X-Rap
May 21, 2012, 01:41 PM
The variables are so great in real life that I don't think there is a scientific way to prove which is the best, IMO it is like trying to figure out how some people are able to walk away from what for others was a fatal car wreck.
The one thing I believe in is being able to bring the maximum amount of rounds to bare with as much controllability as possible. To me at this time that is a double column 9mm.
If there is one assailant and I can keep my cool I'll have ammo for sat. at the range, if there are 2 or more I will probably wish I had two guns.
A person can get shot up pretty bad in the time it takes for a reload so when I carry something with less capacity than 15 or so rds I do so at a what I percieve as a handicap.

MCgunner
May 21, 2012, 03:48 PM
http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=21790&utm_source=EmailDirect.com&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Chronicle+Vol+1+Issue+1

Coments? I think his sample sizes are a might low, makes for a high variance, but I agree with his conclusions.

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'm not real comfortable carrying a .22, but .38 and up, I'm good with it. :D I also feel that bullet placement is a key. Perhaps those .22s were head shots vs center mass for other calibers? Who knows. Anyway, it's interesting if not all that scientific.

Loosedhorse
May 21, 2012, 03:58 PM
To be considered an immediate incapacitation, I used criteria similar to Marshall's. If the attacker was striking or shooting the victim, the round needed to immediately stop the attack without another blow being thrown or shot being fired. If the person shot was in the act of running (either towards or away from the shooter), he must have fallen to the ground within five feet.This definition of incapacitation seems to leave open the possibility that many or most of those listed as "incapacitated" actually had the capacity to continue their fight (or flight), but they gave up.

Attackers using firearms probably should not be considered to be incapacitated unless they are no longer able to pick up the gun and pull the trigger, not if they still could do that but decide not to.

I'd have been very interested to see if the break-out of truly incapacitated attackers vs the ones who just quit. Right now, the only ones we can assume were incapacitated are the fatalities--and even they may have given up at the moment of being hit, and died some time later.

Panzercat
May 21, 2012, 04:00 PM
I was going to write a lengthy and extremely critical post about this article, but I think I can sum it all up as:

'Once you start including critical shot placement as a metric, your ability to determine stopping power through statistics is fundementally flawed.'

There are also too many other failures in the logical continuity of this study to even bother wasting anybodies time with.

Frank Ettin
May 21, 2012, 04:04 PM
Two of the difficulties with these sorts of studies are (1) the generally small sample sizes; and (2) the enormous number of variables that could affect outcome.

But I think one of the strengths of Greg's study, which a lot of folks seem to be missing, is that it begins to highlight the difference between a psychological stop and a physiological stop.

It's often suggested that many attacks are stopped by the psychological effects of getting shot. People generally don't enjoy being shot and will take steps to avoid getting shot more. That seems to explain the data that say that there's not that much difference in the number of stops effected comparing minor calibers with major calibers.

However, not every assailant is readily susceptible to the psychological effects of being shot. Stress related conditions, adrenalin, drugs, alcohol, etc. could all attenuate the psychological effect of being shot. And if the particular assailant is therefore not deterred by the mere fact of being shot, he will need to be physiologically compelled to stop -- by damage to the central nervous system, destruction of major skeletal support structures, or significant blood loss.

The data on the numbers of subjects not incapacitated by various calibers is therefore significant. It shows that many more subjects fail to be incapacitated by minor calibers than by major calibers. And that suggests if the psychological effects of being shot aren't enough to stop the fight, and one must physiologically compel the aggressor to desist, the defender would be better off with a more powerful caliber.

Of course, we don't get to pick ahead of time the bad guy we might be forces to shoot. So since the particular bad guy we have to deal with is one who, under the particular circumstances, is not very susceptible to the psychological effects of being shot, it's still a good idea to be armed with a major caliber it we can conveniently manage to do so.

CoRoMo
May 21, 2012, 04:26 PM
+1

Interesting that there is no round that averages 'less than one round = incapacitation'. :D They didn't include 'the sound of a pump shotgun cycling'. :cool: That's supposed to incapacitate in the higher percentages, I've read. :p

Odd Job
May 21, 2012, 04:28 PM
Under discussion here already:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=660014

MCgunner
May 21, 2012, 04:29 PM
Jeez, I hadn't thought of that or the "looking down the twin barrels of the SxS 12 scares 'em dead." :D The only time I had to pull a handgun, it was a .25ACP and the guy ran, I didn't have to shoot. Technically a stop, don't ya think? :D

EvilGenius
May 21, 2012, 04:45 PM
I havent read all the responses so maybe it's been covered, but we talked about this study on another forum and more or less came to the following conclusions:

1) He probably doesnt have enough of a sampling size of .25, .32 and .44 to really make a conclusion to their effectiveness. (He admits it.)

2) He confuses "incapacitation" with stopping the threat. The threat might be incapacitated or might've just given up.

3) He also touches on what I feel is the real key here. Psychology. If someone doesnt have much or any experience in a firefight or getting shot, their instinctive reaction upon being hit is to give up and "die" because most of us, at least in the us, grew up playing cowboys/indians/cops/robbers and watching hollywood where as soon as someone is hit anywhere regardless of caliber or pain. They "die" because thats whats suppose to happen when you get shot. Rory Miller touches on this a lot and even brings up recorded stories of people proceding their attack even when being shot point blank in the head.

If they BG is not mentally prepared to get shot, then usually any caliber will work.

I theyre on drugs, mentally disturbed, or really pissed off then anything .38spl/9mm and up will get the job done just about equally if you do your part.

Skribs
May 21, 2012, 04:47 PM
It's often suggested that many attacks are stopped by the psychological effects of getting shot. People generally don't enjoy being shot and will take steps to avoid getting shot more.

Except for the guy in NY last week who shot his friend in the leg, because his friend asked him to. The friend wanted to know what it was like to get shot.

Jeff White
May 21, 2012, 04:55 PM
No round stops everyone every time. Not even with a perfect hit. Stopping power is a myth. If you want to be sure of stopping your opponent with one hit every time you need to carry something like a 90 mm recoilless rifle loaded with flechette rounds.

There are no magic bullets. Any modern handgun bullet in caliber .38 special or larger is sufficient to incapacitate a man in a reasonable amount of time, but that incapacitation is not guaranteed to happen with one hit. Not even the mythical perfect hit. There are no magic bullets.

jrdolall
May 21, 2012, 05:06 PM
One thing that a lot of people seem to be missing, though others have mentioned it, is the high pecentage of attacks that stopped after one shot no matter what the caliber. MOST attackers simply do not want to get shot again. For that extremely high number of attackers it is unimportant what caliber is used. If I was an attacker I would probably fall into that category and so would most others. I understand that drugged attackers or truly deranged attackers are probably more likely to continue an attack unless they are completely down but, for the majority of attackers, the fact that his victim has fired a gun is enough.

I think that most will agree that a heavier bullet fired into the arm is more destructive than a light bullet even though there are so many variables in that scenario. A .25 that penetrates the heart is probably as deadly as a 45 that penetrates the heart. IMO the definition of Self Defense is to make the attacker stop. If I can accomplish that then I have been successful. This study is like just about any other study. I take them all with a grain of salt and keep on shooting the guns that I feel comfortable with.

Is there a study that examines soiled underclothes as a result of a gun being fired at you?

mdauben
May 21, 2012, 05:13 PM
Except for the guy in NY last week who shot his friend in the leg, because his friend asked him to. The friend wanted to know what it was like to get shot.
How much you want to bet he stopped asking after the first round? One round stopping power! :neener:

Loosedhorse
May 21, 2012, 05:21 PM
But I think one of the strengths of Greg's study, which a lot of folks seem to be missing, is that it begins to highlight the difference between a psychological stop and a physiological stop.I'm still mssing it.

The definition that Greg says he is using for "incapacitation" seems to include "psychological stops"--just as Marshall and Sanow's did. So I see not improvement here.

I mean, I get the presumption (if this is what you mean?) that psychological stops are roughly the same for both "minor" calibers and "major" cailbers, and that (therefore) the difference we see in "incapacitation" between major and minor calibers is the difference in physiological stops...

I just don't see that this study helps justify that presumption. In fact, as the (IPSC) "minor" (and sub-minor) calibers range from 21-34% fatalities (the ultimate "physiological stop"--although, again, a person might stop first and die later, so the stop was actually "psychological" at the time it happened), and the major calibers range from 25-34%, they seem to be about equal physiologically (with perhaps the exception of the .32 pistol calibers).

Unless you perhaps mean that the major calibers are better at producing psychological stops? I think that might be.

JohnBT
May 21, 2012, 06:00 PM
Nah, he left because he saw the .25 and didn't want to laugh and hurt your feelings.

:evil:

Sig Bill
May 21, 2012, 07:28 PM
I wouldn't laugh at a 25. Maybe they won't kill you maybe they will, either way it's gonna hurt.

One winter I shot my Titan 25 at a gallon jug of solid ice twice in my backyard. They both went through it. I thought damn, if I stabbed it with a knife it wouldn't go far.

Frank Ettin
May 21, 2012, 07:54 PM
...I mean, I get the presumption (if this is what you mean?) that psychological stops are roughly the same for both "minor" calibers and "major" cailbers, and that (therefore) the difference we see in "incapacitation" between major and minor calibers is the difference in physiological stops...I'd call it a hypothesis. And it's essentially how Ellifritz interprets the data. See post 21 where I quote him.

Skribs
May 21, 2012, 07:54 PM
I also just realized that the Shotgun category is very broad, it would seem to include everything from #12 ratshot out of a .410 to 10-gauge slugs.

With a mixture of ammunition, you cannot really conclude anything. Were the people shot with a .22 hit with varmint rounds or 40 gr hypervelocity hardball rounds? Were the people shot with a 9mm shot with ball ammo or JHP ammo? He touches on the fallacy in the article, but doesn't go into how much it affected the results.

joecil
May 21, 2012, 08:55 PM
Here is an interesting article I just saw for the first time this morning. The facts of shots to stop might be a bit surprising as the was to me also.

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=21790&utm_source=EmailDirect.com&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Chronicle+Vol+1+Issue+1

coalman
May 21, 2012, 10:32 PM
Here is an interesting article I just saw for the first time this morning. The facts of shots to stop might be a bit surprising as the was to me also. http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=2...+Vol+1+Issue+1
From that article discussing a hole size in a bucket of water and water loss as analogous to holes in living things, and the point I stopped reading: "Personally I don’t think [there] is much difference between .0034% and .0054% in relation to the human body. After all it’s only 0.002%!!!". This is a common error in analysis I see time and again. You must establish a relative percentage scale when comparing the numbers as all the numbers are small which misleads a conclusion as to the differences comparing the numbers at face value. So, just using the numbers from the article as written, the .0034 of 9mm divided by the .0054 of .45acp = 63%, or if you prefer .0054/.0034 = 1.59%, both outcomes greatly favoring .45acp. Does that % matter to you? Maybe, maybe not, and there are other things to consider. But, it's not the "0.002%!!!" touted in the article and many in the smaller caliber camps misunderstand this.

MCgunner
May 21, 2012, 10:47 PM
Quote:
Except for the guy in NY last week who shot his friend in the leg, because his friend asked him to. The friend wanted to know what it was like to get shot.




How much you want to bet he stopped asking after the first round? One round stopping power!

Well, if I were doing this study, I'd toss out data that had too much dumbass factor. :rolleyes:

elrowe
May 21, 2012, 10:49 PM
That's the key - almost any of these will pass through a human target - having more energy than another round that also goes through means the energy advantage is wasted. The diameter of the various service calibers doesn't really vary by enough of a percentage to mean much difference in size of hole in pass through shots. So the extra hundred or so ft/lbs. of energy just means the bullet goes farther out the other side.

beex215
May 21, 2012, 11:28 PM
that why i carry a steel hammer. its much better than firearms. it wont ever jam or need ammo. i can even throw it.

rem22long40x
May 22, 2012, 05:25 AM
Shot placement is #1 , there will always be a reasond for any cal. to preform good or bad. I saw a man shot to peaces and did not go down untill the drugs ran out. on the othere hand I saw a man shot in the leg with a 22 lr.and it came out the top of his head and he fell limp as a wet rag.

Flopsweat
May 22, 2012, 06:59 AM
Under discussion here already:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=660014
I saw what you did there... ;)

skoro
May 23, 2012, 10:05 AM
Didn't look like a study to me. Just a survey. And the survey's finding that .32 caliber is most effective doesn't lend it a lot of credibility. :D

303tom
May 23, 2012, 12:19 PM
Didn't look like a study to me. Just a survey. And the survey's finding that .32 caliber is most effective doesn't lend it a lot of credibility. :D
I will tell you what, this .32 carries a lot of credibility..............

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/462443/federal-american-eagle-ammunition-327-federal-magnum-100-grain-jacketed-soft-point-box-of-50

Skribs
May 23, 2012, 12:30 PM
That's part of the problem, Tom. .327 and .32 ACP are lumped together.

Powerglide
May 23, 2012, 10:46 PM
Mass of projectile and speed of said projectile. Area of placement.
Common sense again.
I still carry a 1903 Colt 32. Why? It probably will work, if I do mine.

KTXdm9
May 23, 2012, 11:01 PM
No round stops everyone every time. Not even with a perfect hit. Stopping power is a myth. If you want to be sure of stopping your opponent with one hit every time you need to carry something like a 90 mm recoilless rifle loaded with flechette rounds.

There are no magic bullets. Any modern handgun bullet in caliber .38 special or larger is sufficient to incapacitate a man in a reasonable amount of time, but that incapacitation is not guaranteed to happen with one hit. Not even the mythical perfect hit. There are no magic bullets.
Well said. Best post in the thread.

303tom
May 24, 2012, 12:33 AM
That's part of the problem, Tom. .327 and .32 ACP are lumped together.
They are both .32`s................

Rampant_Colt
May 24, 2012, 12:47 AM
They are both .32`s................
Their [terminal] ballistics are so completely different it's like saying a .38 Short Colt is the same as a .357 Sig; or a .380 ACP is the same as .357 Mag. .32 ACP is an autoloading cartridge, .327 Federal is a revolver cartridge. Apples & oranges. They're not even remotely close.

This seriously flawed "study" has more holes in it than the patterning board at the shotgun range

duns
May 24, 2012, 02:08 AM
These are very important data and I take my hat off to Mr. Ellifritz for collecting them. Unfortunately, the data need to be reported in greater detail for a proper statistical analysis. Terminology also needs to be defined more clearly. For example:


"Average number of rounds until incapacitation" has been calculated as "# of people shot" divided by "# of hits". This implies that the numerator was actually "# of people shot AND incapacitated".

"% of hits that were fatal" only took into account hits to torso and head, but we are not told how many people were hit in the torso or head, nor how many shots landed in the torso or head.

We are given "% of people who were not incapacitated" but not told how many people that was.


After collecting data for so many years, it would be a shame not to publish it in full detail so that those with the necessary statistical skills could analyze it rigorously.

303tom
May 24, 2012, 11:43 AM
[QUOTE=Rampant_Colt;8180351]Their [terminal] ballistics are so completely different it's like saying a .38 Short Colt is the same as a .357 Sig; or a .380 ACP is the same as .357 Mag.


Them are all 9mm...............

Skribs
May 24, 2012, 11:55 AM
There's differences beyond simply bullet diameter. For example, with .32 ACP, you're likely to use hardball. With .327, you're likely to use hollowpoints. With .380 ACP, it's about 50/50 whether people use hardball or hollowpoints. With 9mm, people tend to lean towards hollowpoint (but military skewed that towards hardball). With .357, you have virtually no excuse but to use a hollowpoint or similarly effective round over a hardball that will zip through.

They may both be 9mm, but if you're using hardball in a .380 to get the desired penetration and BJHP in .357 to get expansion, you are not going to have the same hole.

The .223 is only 0.003 wider than the .22 LR, but it is vastly more powerful.

X-Rap
May 24, 2012, 12:29 PM
So this whole stopping power debate marches on while a newb shooter in one trip to the range could decide their "perfect " balance in cartridge power vs. controllability.
The equation will probably change over the life of a shooter but the "fact" will remain that quality of shot and quantity on that target will rule the day with most typical handgun rounds.

CSestp
May 24, 2012, 12:55 PM
Brings to mind an old quote I saw on here a long time ago during a .45acp vs whatever argument;

"If your neighbor steps out on his front porch and shoots you in the head with a .22lr you've had a bad day."

Flopsweat
May 25, 2012, 08:43 AM
There's differences beyond simply bullet diameter. For example, with .32 ACP, you're likely to use hardball. With .327, you're likely to use hollowpoints. With .380 ACP, it's about 50/50 whether people use hardball or hollowpoints. With 9mm, people tend to lean towards hollowpoint (but military skewed that towards hardball). With .357, you have virtually no excuse but to use a hollowpoint or similarly effective round over a hardball that will zip through.

They may both be 9mm, but if you're using hardball in a .380 to get the desired penetration and BJHP in .357 to get expansion, you are not going to have the same hole.

The .223 is only 0.003 wider than the .22 LR, but it is vastly more powerful.
Isn't .22LR actually .224" in diameter?

303tom
May 25, 2012, 10:44 AM
Isn't .22LR actually .224" in diameter?
Actually it is .222...............hence .22 LR

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