One Shot Stopping Stats on Goats.

[wbond]

Have you ever heard of the Strasbourg goat tests?

That's where some European scientists tested various handgun calibers on goats of similar size to humans. This was done (I think) in 1991. All shots were lung shots.

I personally believe these are the most scientific tests ever done on the subject of stopping potential and they reveal a lot.

For example, you can see that of all the guns tested, the .357 Mag has the best stopping stats, but the .40 and .45 are so close as to be about the same.

It also shows that the 3 mentioned above are only slightly better than a 9mm, which is only slightly better than a .38 Spl with 4" barrel, which is only a little better than a .380.

Note that they did not test the .38 Spl with 2" barrel, which is believed weaker than a .380 by other stopping stats databases.

I wish the Strasbourg goat tests would have included a .38 Spl with 2" barrel, .32 ACP, .32 Mag, 9x18, .38 Super, and .357 Sig, but they were not tested. Some of those didn't exist then. However, we can guess well how well these other cartridges would do.

The most important thing I learned from the goat tests is that no handgun offers immediate stopping power. There is no knock down power to the chest (head shot might though). The best stopping time was 7.34 seconds to incapacitate a goat with one shot from a 4" barrel .357 Mag.

In 7.34 seconds, a criminal with a knife could kill you and carve his initials in your chest, let alone if he had a gun. I think this makes a good argument for wearing a vest.

Note: The goat was not a religious fanatic, nor a crackhead. Nor was he upset with his adrenaline going before getting shot. Yet he lasted 7.34 seconds before dropping from a .357M. That was the shortest time from the best cartridge tested. (no criminals were harmed)

Just imagine how much worse the miserable stopping times would have been if the goats were enraged crackheads or insurgents. Maybe next time they should give the goats some meth first, or better yet, get them hooked on it and then take it away. That would be one angry goat.

That means that a double or triple tap might be needed on a human attacker no matter what gun you have.​

I also find it interesting that a .380 is nearly as good as a 9mm, and a 9mm is nearly as good as a .357M.

There just isn't that much difference in performance between calibers.

I think this also shows that a .357, 10mm, .40, or .45 are all equally best for one shot stop potential. The .357 Sig, and .38 Super weren't tested, but I think we can assume they would be similar to the .357 Mag or in the neighborhood. Of these guns, I personally prefer the .40 and .38 Super because they hold (or could be made to hold) more ammo with decent recoil for those with healthy hands. It's a shame that more modern guns aren't made for the .38 Super. I think the .38 Super could be ideal in a modern gun with lots of ammo. Why isn't the .38 Super more popular?

The big lesson here is that more power only helps a little and only to a point. Once you reach that point, any additional power is wasted. If you need a lot more power, then get a shotgun.

See the goat tests for yourself. They tell more than gelatin or questionable stats gathered by non-staticians.

The problem with Marshall and Sanow and other databases and conclusions of that sort is that statistics experts aren't combat experts, and combat experts aren't statistics experts. If there were a combat expert who was a statician, then I'd be impressed.​

I think scientists need to shoot more goats, but that's not PC.

Click here to see goat tests: http://webplaza.pt.lu/smat/database/News/StoppingPower/Power.htm

 

[wbond]

As an after thought. .38 Spl vs .45 ACP

I'll just stick with my original post above.

 

[1 old 0311]

I have a copy of the Strasburg tests, and also Marshall's. They are real close in results. I use this info in my ammo choices.
Some cry, and whine about the tests, but they couldn't find 300 people willing to be shot. Good info.

Kevin

 

[only1asterisk]

Is it goat time again? My, how time flies! Didn't we just have one of these treads a couple of months ago?

David

 

[Tim Burke]

The goat tests have been beat to death. Some say they never happened; some say they did. Anyone who has been paying attention has already heard of them, and most have an opinion.
Assuming that the tests occurred, and that the results are accurate, what question do they answer?
"What is the best ammo to lung shoot a goat?"
If you find the answer to that question helpful in choosing your defensive ammo, then you may want to ponder whether or not the tests occurred and whether are not the results are valid.
If you don't think the answer to that question is helpful, then you probably don't need to spend any more time wondering about the Strasbourg tests.
BTW, there is no indication the Strasbourg tests were done by European researchers.

 

[MCgunner]

Oh boy, I'm out before this starts. What's the point? The big bullet guys are going to claim it's a farce, seen it before. It disproves their theories so it's all bunk.

C Ya

Close this topic before it gets started!

 

[Rigby470]

I know little bullets can do big damage. A couple of years ago some idiot was arrested in AR for illegally shooting an elk with a .22lr. 1 shot to the neck and the elk dropped in it's tracks.

 

[trickyasafox]

"the goat tests have been beat to death"

oh god. . . thats a terrible pun in this thread

 

[Bob R]

In some places you don't even need a gun. A towel in bath caliber will do just fine.


http://www.qarxis.com/Fainting_Goats

bob

 

[Destructo6]

Do a search on this or over at TFL. The general concensus is that the Strausburd Goat Test never happened.

 

[Burt Blade]

Don't let them get your goat!

 

[isp2605]

wbond erroneously wrote:
"I'm sure we've all heard the stories about Muslim extemists in the Philiphines who couldn't be stopped fast enough with a .38 Spl, so the army adopted the .45 ACP."

Nope. You need to do a bit more research not only on history but on firearms.
It wasn't the .38 Spl but .38 Colt which is a lower powered, different cartridge. The .38 Spl wasn't even around for the Philippine War. Neither was the .45 ACP. If you read anything about those battles you'll also find the rifles from that period weren't very effective against the Moros either.


wbond further inquired:
"Why didn't .38 Super become popular?"

It was popular, just long before your time. During the 1930s the .38 Super was very popular both in LE and the bad guys.
The Super suffered from poor accuracy. It is a semi-rimmed case and early guns headspaced on the rim. It wasn't until the late 60s-70s when BarSto made drop in barrels which headspaced on the case mouth that the .38 Super's accuracy greatly improved.
You still find a lot of .38 Super shooters in competition matches as it's easier to make major without hot rodding the 9mm. It's just not as popular of a rd for self defense purposes as there are other rds that perform just as well in different packages.

 

[Cosmoline]

WHERE ARE THE RIFLE ROUNDS?

All the handgun rounds tested were in the same general class as far as weight and ft. lbs. At most they confirmed that that class of handgun rounds are fairly fungible. In order to have some comparison points, .22 rimfires should have been used as well as an array of more potent handguns and rifle rounds.

 

[wbond]

Did the goat tests happen?

I don't know because I wasn't there. You guys really make me want to shoot some goats. Of course, that would be a felony in my state, unless I were a farmer or butcher and the goats were to be used for food.

Didn't Ayoob shoot steers at a slaughter house? No one cried to much about that because the steers were going to be slaughtered anyway. However, I think we all know that shooting a steer with a handgun might be cruel since the animal is to big for the gun.

However, large goats are the same size as a typical man. If Ayoob had been shooting goats, that would have told us something, IMO.

Surely the test could be run at a slaughter house legally? If not in this country, then overseas.

As far as the potency of small rounds, that depends a lot on shot placement I think. My grandfather and great uncle poached deer in the 1950s and/or 1960s with a semi-auto .22 Magnum rifle. Don't anyone bother jumping all over me about when the .22 Mag rifle came out. I don't know and I don't care. I wasn't there. I only know that my grandfather did this stuff before the 1970s. He said that 3 well placed shots in rapid succession always dropped deer for him. He couldn't put more than 3 in them because they'd already be down before a 4th shot could be taken. A small bullet can do a lot of damage fast with good shot placement.

I think one of the points I was trying to make was lost on many of you. So I'll repeat it here. Increases in handgun power do not give proportionate increases in stopping ability. This is likely due to the law of diminishing returns.

If you look at stopping power per amount of recoil, the .380, 9mm, and .38 Spl look very good. That was one of my points.

Even without considering recoil benefits, the stopping potential of the .380, 9mm, and .38 Spl look decent.​

The other points I was trying to make are that no handgun can be relied on for fast incapacitation, and the various calibers and cartridges just aren't that different in stopping performance. The thing that counts the most is that a hollow point is much better than ball (even for .380).

I think not only do the goat tests show these things (assuming they happened), but also M&S and others as well. i.e. - your gun might be twice as powerful as mine, but it's no where near twice as effective per shot. A less powerful gun can have faster follow up shots and hold more ammo, if smaller caliber.

This likely explains the popularity of the 9mm. It also make me feel that my Firestorm .380 is good enough. Can I rely on my .380 for a one shot stop? No way, but neither can you rely on any larger handgun for that either. My .380 is easy to carry and easy to shoot fast follow up shots. I'd guess my .32 Mag 3" barrel Ruger is similar to my .380 for stopping potential, but that's only a guess since no tests have been done and no actual SD shootings have occured with .32M.

A .357M .40, and .45 are as close as you can get to fast stopping with a handgun, but they aren't that much better per shot than a .38 Spl or 9mm. No handgun gives one shot stops quickly. If you want one shot stops fast, use a shotgun.

 

[Burt Blade]

Jim Cirillo has had a few things to say about various rounds he has used on human opponents. He has published some of his observations. He speaks of more in person.

His first-hand first-person observations are enlightening.

 

[wbond]

To ISP2605:

Quoting ISP2605:"wbond erroneously wrote:
"I'm sure we've all heard the stories about Muslim extemists in the Philiphines who couldn't be stopped fast enough with a .38 Spl, so the army adopted the .45 ACP.""

From Wbond in response: Take it easy. Look, I was only repeating the urban legend as I've heard it in many gun stores, including from store employees. I've heard it many times.

If the story-legend I heard is wrong, don't castigate me for it. I never said it happened. I never presented it as historical fact. I only presented it as the story I've heard many times, which it is. What I said was that's the story I've heard and I don't think the facts back up the story.

You've pointed out that the story was wrong at its root. That isn't my fault. I repeated it as I've heard it, and I said it was a "story". I do appreciate you clearing that up though. No wonder the US troops had problems in the Philippines.

 

[ugaarguy]

(Goat) Hunters For The Hungry?

Maybe someone needs to kill some "extra" goats with various centerfire hanguns and a few rimfire and centerfire rifles for comparison. Of course they'd be slaughtered so the meat could be donated to the needy. Maybe pigs would work too? A hog farmer back home would shoot them in the head with CCI stingers out of a little single action 22 revolver. He said it dropped them as fast as using centerfire pistols or rifles since even a small bullet at point blank to the brain tends to take the life out of a critter mighty quick.

 

[wbond]

To Burt Blade:

Could you post some links to Mr. Cirillo's comments?

 

[wbond]

To ugaarguy:

I'd rather see goats used than pigs because if the data corresponded to the Strasbourg tests, that would also prove they happened, which would double the test results right off.

As a matter of fact, if the goat tests were repeated with 3 guns and they all closely mirrored the published Strasbourg tests, that would be proof enough for me that the Strasbourg test happened.

 

[wbond]

To doubting Thomases:

For the doubting Thomases who don't think the Strasbourg tests ever happened: I don't know since I wasn't there. How do we know the M&S shootings happened? I wasn't present at those shootings either. Were you? How do we know the shooters in M&S really told the police what truly happened?

I believe both the goat and M&S shootings occurred and that the goat shooters and M&S all intend to give good info. However, with M&S, they made certain choices about which shootings to include and not include, which makes the results suspect. Also, the M&S shootings did not occur under controlled conditions, which means that they could be comparing a lung shot in one case to a heart shot in another. The goat tests were all consistently lung shots, which would make an apples to apples comparison between guns. Also M&S are relying on police reports, which relied on the shooters testimony. Impartial testimony? I think not.​

Back to Goat Tests: If they were going to fabricate the test results, then why wouldn't they have fabricated test results for all calibers and cartridges?

The fact that they don't have test results for some cartridges (.32 ACP, 9x18, .38 Spl 2" barrel, .38 Super, etc) makes me think the test results are real.

After all, if they were going to lie, why leave out certain cartridges that should have been tested?

 

[wbond]

Lung Shots:

I should add, in case anyone doesn't know, the Strasbourg tests were all lung shots.

Also, the times shown are the norms (averages). There were some shots outside the norm that instantly incapacitated while others did nothing for 60 seconds (at which point the animal was shot again for humane reasons). The 60 second failure shots were ball ammo (a very good argument for hollow points).

Therefore, the "norms" are not always what happens. The Strasbourg test fine print explains all this.

 

[wbond]

High Road Barbecue?

With goat on the menu?

 

[bakert]

Reading about the goat tests from different sources is interesting but a standing goat is usually pretty docile. He aint pissed off, and don't have a gun or sharp teeth and claws!

 

[wbond]

Diminishing Returns of Power

The .357 Mag took 7.34 seconds to put the goat down with a lung shot.
The .380 took 10.94 seconds to do the same.

That means the .357M is 32% more effective per lung shot than a .380. i.e. - it put a goat down 32% faster.

The .357M has 583 ft/lbs energy and the .380 has 200 ft/lbs using the same ammo that gave the stopping times above.

That means that the .357 Mag has 292% the energy of a .380, but only 32% more stopping ability.

This clearly demonstrates that more power only helps a little bit, even with an extreme example like this.

===================================================

Now let's compare the .357 Mag to the .38 Spl.

.357M stopping time 7.34 seconds.
.38 Spl stopping time 8.98 seconds.
This means the .357M was 18.3% more effective than a .38 Spl.

The .357M has 583 ft/lbs energy and the .38 Spl has 399 ft/lbs using the same ammo that gave the stopping times above.

That means that the .357 Mag has 146% the energy of the .38 Spl, but only 18.3% more stopping ability.

This clearly demonstrates that more power only helps a little bit. However, the power increase slows repeat shots. So how much does more power really help?

 

[wbond]

To Bakert:

Quoting Bakert: Reading about the goat tests from different sources is interesting but a standing goat is usually pretty docile. He aint pissed off, and don't have a gun or sharp teeth and claws!

Reply from Wbond: If the goat were angry or dangerous, the shooters in the goat tests would have been in trouble.

If a docile animal can stand around for over 7 seconds after taking a .357M to the lungs, then just imagine what a dangerous animal or human could do in 7 seconds.

Furthermore, an angry, dangerous human or animal would probably last longer due to adrenaline.