10mm vs 45 ACP which has more stopping power.

[481]

No, he asked you to take your pick of any one of the alternate definitions IE effectiveness and disprove that.

I am not required to define what he claims. He is. Please try to keep up.

It's you being obtuse refusing to accept any definition for stopping power that has derailed this thread.

No, its called critical thinking. The blind acceptance of such concepts without any proof is naivete at its worst and just plain bad science.

So if handgun projectiles don't have the power to stop a threat why do you even have them.

Just because I don't accept the misuse of a poorly defined and unscientific notion doesn't render my guns unusable.

 

[481]

You have already said there is no agreed upon definition, so why would I try to define it?

Why not define it? I suspect that you are afraid to do so since you know you haven't the ability to put forth a definition that'll hold water.

However, I thought it was safe to assume it did not equal an already defined quantity--if it did, the term would be redundant. Since I never said it was any of these, I'm not sure why you conclude I have "nothing."
Perhaps you would offer your proof that stopping power is mystical, as you claim? (Odd claim, as you haven't defined stopping power. But then, odd claims seem your game.)

OK, now we know what you think it is not. Now then, what is it? Second time asked- will you fail to provide an answer again?

Are you sure you don't want to go back to being bored?

Who said I wasn't still bored?

 

[Loosedhorse]

ShawnC, I like your approach. It seems intuitive (JMHO) that a .25 ACP FMJ in this spot might be lethal...but it would take a bit of time for the assailant to figure that out. A .45 HP in the same spot might "convince" the assailant to cease activities sooner.

There are those who claim the only way that either a .25 or a .45 can stop an attack is by exsanguination or CNS damage, but they are few. Most do agree that these are the only sure-fire ways.

However, most of us seem to understand that some folks hit non-lethally with non-CNS hits (or hit lethally, but in such a way that death will not ensue for many minutes) will stop fighting sometimes, right away; perhaps even become unconscious. We then vary on the following:

• Whether we should ignore that phenomenon, because it is "undependable."
• Whether we believe that certain charateristics of the projectile can influence how often it happens
• What the exact mechanism(s) of such stops are.

It's actually more confusing than that: some will say that "stopping power" doesn't exist for handguns, but does for rifle calibers. Even in rifle calibers, the mechanism for such "stops" is not agreed upon.

Still, it seems that many hunters are comfortable using the term "stopping power" or "knockdown power," referring to the effect of some projectiles on animals; while that phrase used for handgun SD rounds provokes...well, we've all seen what it provokes.

 

[481]

...well, we've all seen what it provokes.

Yes, we have....your ability to post provocative statements without being able to prove the "pet theory" that you are advocating.

Well, that and your inability to discern opinion from fact.

 

[mavracer]

No, its called critical thinking. The blind acceptance of such concepts without any proof is naivete at its worst and just plain bad science.

You call it what you want, your inability to answer a simple question is the root cause of this massive thread drift.
The answer is properly loaded the 10mm has more "stopping power" due to it's greater potential to do damage.

Peace

 

[Loosedhorse]

you are afraid

will you fail

Since I have not tried to define it, nor accepted the tasks you assign, I can't fail.

Again, you are the one who has claimed that, no matter how it is defined, it does not exist. So, for you its definition is immaterial.

However, some of us--like ShawnC--are braving your comments, and trying to have a conversation in spite of them.

Well, that and your inability to discern opinion from fact.

More ad hom. Predictable.

 

[481]

You call it what you want, your inability to answer a simple question is the root cause of this massive thread drift.

You are too kind. Such "drift" would not have been possible without your participation.

 

[481]

Since I have not tried to define it, nor accepted the tasks you assign, I can't fail.

By that definition, neither can I.

Again, you are the one who has claimed that, no matter how it is defined, it does not exist. So, for you its definition is immaterial.

However, some of us--like ShawnC--are braving your comments, and trying to have a conversation in spite of them.More ad hom. Predictable.

Predictable, also.

Play the "victim" all you want, but your halo is tarnished, too, Chief.

Braving my comments? Oh, puhleeeeeeze.

 

[45_auto]

The answer is properly loaded the 10mm has more "stopping power" due to it's greater potential to do damage.

You don't believe that the FBI wants the most "stopping power" possible for their agents?

I guess you think that the FBI quit using the 10mm because it didn't give the bad guys a fair chance in a firefight?

 

[mavracer]

You are too kind. Such "drift" would not have been possible without your participation.

Ya my bad, guess I shouldn't have tried to get you to actually answer the OPs question.

 

[intercooler]

I want to get in! 10mm trumps 45 just like .44 may trumps 10mm and so on.

 

[mavracer]

I guess you think that the FBI quit using the 10mm because it didn't give the bad guys a fair chance in a firefight?

nope too many girlie wrists.

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

A handguns effectiveness is going to depend on several other factors, however when compairing different rounds it is unnessary do discuss anything other than the ability do do damage. more damage= more effective
now I'll argue all day that we can have no idea which is more important a little bigger hole or a little deeper hole. but a bigger and deeper hole is gonna have a better chance of being effective.
a heavy loaded 10mm will do that.

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree with you on a few of your points.

I agree that effectiveness is related to the ability to do damage.

However, I think you analysis is overly simplistic. Allow me to make a demonstrative argument:

Is the goal of dealing damage not in the end to stop the aggression of your opponent? If this is true, then more damage is not necessarily more effective. This must be the case, because only 'X' amount of power is actually needed to damage vital structure 'Y'. For example - even an auxiliary hit to a limb can cause involuntary loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds if the Brachial (upper arm) or Femoral (upper leg) arteries are damaged. The Brachial artery is often as little as 1/2" below the surface; so shallow in fact that even a .22LR or 25acp would have no trouble reaching, and shredding, said structure even at extended ranges. In such situations, which have been documented to happen, even the largest and most physically fit individuals will loose consciousness in a few seconds. no amount of 'will power' or desire to 'fight thought it' will save someone who suffers such an injury.

Yes, I have chosen an outlaying example - one that nearly any other scenario could surpass by any definition of 'effectiveness' ... yet the effectiveness of such a shot can not be denied, because it would indeed effectively stop the threat.

This has been shown in tragic real life scenarios. There is a memorial in the middle of the city park in my home town - a memorial to the first city policemen to be killed in the line of duty. He was laid low by a single shot to the leg from a .22 caliber pocket revolver. He did NOT die days later of infection. He did not 'get mad' and shove the gun up the perpetrators rectum. This officer, known to be very physically fit, was chasing a burglary suspect down the street and in the process had outrun his partner. The criminal wheeled around and fired a single shot at the officer, which struck him in the leg and severed his femoral artery. the brave officer stumbled and fell, and was unconscious before his partner caught up to him only moments later. He was dead before any medical help could be administered.

That is a sad tale, but It illustrates my main points on the subject:
1) Exceedingly little energy is actually needed to disable a man if the bullet strikes the proper place.
2) IF any definition of stopping power can be made, it must be comprised mostly of shot placement.
3) If such weak cartridges can be shown to be effective in real life scenarios then arguing about 45 Vs. 10mm is entirely pointless.

 

[Mike1234567]

* deleted a mess-up *

 

[Fishman777]

Standard 230 grain .45 acp is definitely weaker than 10 mm.

Double tap's standard pressure 255 grain, flat nose, hard cast is pretty nasty stuff. According to their website it can penetrate 27" in flesh and bone. Pretty darn good performance without a huge amount of energy or recoil. the +p stuff is a little nastier than the standard stuff - 255 grain at 925 fps. It's a lot like a warm .45 colt load.

.45 super is probably more similiar to 10 mm in terms of power. .460 rowland is more powerful than 10mm.

 

[481]

Ya my bad, guess I shouldn't have tried to get you to actually answer the OPs question.

I answered it.

You just missed it 'cause you were too busy contributing to the thread drift that you just tried to lay entirely on my shoulders.

How'd that work out for you?

 

[481]

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree with you on a few of your points.

I agree that effectiveness is related to the ability to do damage.

However, I think you analysis is overly simplistic. Allow me to make a demonstrative argument:

Is the goal of dealing damage not in the end to stop the aggression of your opponent? If this is true, then more damage is not necessarily more effective. This must be the case, because only 'X' amount of power is actually needed to damage vital structure 'Y'. For example - even an auxiliary hit to a limb can cause involuntary loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds if the Brachial (upper arm) or Femoral (upper leg) arteries are damaged. The Brachial artery is often as little as 1/2" below the surface; so shallow in fact that even a .22LR or 25acp would have no trouble reaching, and shredding, said structure even at extended ranges. In such situations, which have been documented to happen, even the largest and most physically fit individuals will loose consciousness in a few seconds. no amount of 'will power' or desire to 'fight thought it' will save someone who suffers such an injury.

Yes, I have chosen an outlaying example - one that nearly any other scenario could surpass by any definition of 'effectiveness' ... yet the effectiveness of such a shot can not be denied, because it would indeed effectively stop the threat.

This has been shown in tragic real life scenarios. There is a memorial in the middle of the city park in my home town - a memorial to the first city policemen to be killed in the line of duty. He was laid low by a single shot to the leg from a .22 caliber pocket revolver. He did NOT die days later of infection. He did not 'get mad' and shove the gun up the perpetrators rectum. This officer, known to be very physically fit, was chasing a burglary suspect down the street and in the process had outrun his partner. The criminal wheeled around and fired a single shot at the officer, which struck him in the leg and severed his femoral artery. the brave officer stumbled and fell, and was unconscious before his partner caught up to him only moments later. He was dead before any medical help could be administered.

That is a sad tale, but It illustrates my main points on the subject:
1) Exceedingly little energy is actually needed to disable a man if the bullet strikes the proper place.
2) IF any definition of stopping power can be made, it must be comprised mostly of shot placement.
3) If such weak cartridges can be shown to be effective in real life scenarios then arguing about 45 Vs. 10mm is entirely pointless.

MCW,

What a well reasoned post.

Points #1 and #2 correlate with what I've held as "a truth" for a long time, that is; Placement is important because it is where such a physiological vulnerablity usually exists. Hits to the body's periphery are less inclined to impinge upon such vulnerabilities (which tend to be smaller in scale for obvious reasons) and are lower percentage events where the immediate incapacitation of a lethal threat is desired. This is the reason for my insistence that the term "stopping power" is an entirely unsuitable one for what it attempts; it makes no allowance for this component of terminal performance in that it simply assigns a value to a projectile based merely upon its weight, diameter and velocity. (yes, yes they are important but they are not the only factors due such consideration) Placement seems to be assumed in the vernacular usage of the term, even though it cannot be disputed that there are many, many possible placements each having a different rate of effect/effect that cannot be accounted for by such a one dimensional approach.

Thanks.

 

[mavracer]

The Brachial artery is often as little as 1/2" below the surface; so shallow in fact that even a .22LR or 25acp would have no trouble reaching, and shredding, said structure even at extended ranges. In such situations, which have been documented to happen, even the largest and most physically fit individuals will loose consciousness in a few seconds. no amount of 'will power' or desire to 'fight thought it' will save someone who suffers such an injury.

Of course a more powerful round may well destroy both the Brachial and deep Brachial arteries along with more of the smaller arteries causing more blood loss and even faster incapisatation. Besides banking on hitting the brachial artery with a 22 or 25 is a lot dumber than arguing 10mm vs 45acp.

yet it cannot be disputed that there are many, many possible placements each having a different rate of effect/effect that cannot be accounted for by such a one dimensional approach.

If you would just point out the shot placement where a smaller and more shallow wound could be more effective? otherwise I have to dispute this statement as being irrelevant.

 

[481]

MCW,

What a well reasoned post.

Points #1 and #2 correlate with what I've held as "a truth" for a long time, that is; Placement is important because it is where such a physiological vulnerablity usually exists. Hits to the body's periphery are less inclined to impinge upon such vulnerabilities (which tend to be smaller in scale for obvious reasons) and are lower percentage events where the immediate incapacitation of a lethal threat is desired. This is the reason for my insistence that the term "stopping power" is an entirely unsuitable one for what it attempts; it makes no allowance for this component of terminal performance in that it simply assigns a value to a projectile based merely upon its weight, diameter and velocity. (yes, yes they are important but they are not the only factors due such consideration) Placement seems to be assumed in the vernacular usage of the term, even though it cannot be disputed that there are many, many possible placements each having a different rate of effect/effect that cannot be accounted for by such a one dimensional approach.
Thanks.

If you would just point out the shot placement where a smaller and more shallow wound could be more effective? otherwise I have to dispute this statement as being irrelevant.

Taking one part of the sentence out of context as you have shows me that you missed the point being made. I never asserted that a smaller shallower wound could be more effective. The point is that under certain circumstances it can be as effective rendering the one dimensional approach (suggested as "stopping power") an unsuitable method for quantifying what it attempts to quantify.

Next time try reading the whole sentence.

 

[mavracer]

Placement seems to be assumed in the vernacular usage of the term, even though it cannot be disputed that there are many, many possible placements each having a different rate of effect/effect that cannot be accounted for by such a one dimensional approach.

Of course placement is assumed. It's one of only two factors you as the shooter have control over. But unless you can point out the shot placement where a smaller and more shallow wound could be more effective, it has no place in the discussion of the other factor you have control over which is the amount of tissue destroyed. Given adequate penatration a larger wound channel will damage blood vessels that a smaller wound channel passes by, causing greater blood loss and faster incapisitation. And while it can't be quantified the advantage clearly exists.

 

[Loosedhorse]

2) IF any definition of stopping power can be made, it must be comprised mostly of shot placement.

Actually, that's the opposite of most conceptions of stopping power.

Marrshall, Sanow, and our own ShawnC took the approach of given a certain shot placement, are there rounds that end the fight (or drop the deer) earlier than other rounds?

3) If such weak cartridges can be shown to be effective in real life scenarios then arguing about 45 Vs. 10mm is entirely pointless.

This points out that it is probably an error to define too small a target space when defining stopping power; the question, "Which round, on severing the femoral artery, will incapacitate an attacker the fastest?" is likely not a useful question. One reason is that it is difficult to dependably hit the femoral artery.

However, COM is a much more dependable target. Probably why M&S decided to study "stopping power" the way they did.

 

[ugaarguy]

Marrshall, Sanow,

Marshall & Sanow lied. Their data was fabricated. I love how so many people still treat it as if it's peer reviewed scientific data with repeatable results.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If you have the study in hand that shows that their data were way off, please share. Thought not.

Until a duplicate study comes along, we won't know how "repeatable" their data was.

Problems with the data? Sure. If that makes you throw all their data out, fine. Doesn't mean we all have to, and doesn't mean it isn't the best study we have--except for that one you're about to share with us, right?

Their data was fabricated.

They admitted that?

If not you're presenting your opinion as fact--while saying M&S "lied" if they did the same. Hmmmmmm.

And, as I was speaking of their approach, not their data, your opinion about their data doesn't bear on my comment.

 

[lobo9er]

wow

 

[ugaarguy]

If you have the study in hand that shows that their data were way off, please share. Thought not.

You thought wrong. I Actually do have links:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm

They admitted that?

It's been statistically proven. I could care less if they admitted to it or not.