Will Somebody Just Show Me The Stopping Power!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
I have not found anything to dispute this. Jeff COOPER used to give it 19 out of 20, but never gathered any stats.
That was just a quick estimation he came up with based on anecdotal evidence from his combat experience and the experience of others. There's plenty of other anecdotal evidence to refute it.

Unfortunately, like most things in the caliber wars, the comment became holy writ for many.

Also, remember, that 19 out of 20 were the guys who had to fall back on their handgun, then survived to return to friendly lines. Those whose .45's failed generally didn't come back to say "woops, it didn't work" because the Germans and the Nazis tended to cut them to ribbons with rifle fire.
 
sm said:
When it is time to for something to get injured, maimed or dead, it does, no matter what anything, or anyone has written or said.

I'm inclined to believe that this has more to do with it than pretty much anything else.
 
while everyone is arguing online...

i'm going to buy a box of ammunition and a range pass.

give me any gun in a caliber that can penetrate the bastard and hurt him enough for him to stop, and I'll do my part by putting the bullets into him.

And if he doesn't stop I'll fight my way to my SOCOM-16 rifle and put some .308 pain into his world.
 
give me any gun in a caliber that can penetrate the bastard and hurt him enough for him to stop, and I'll do my part by putting the bullets into him.

We have a winner! Mindset and skill before platform and caliber.
 
Dougdubyah
Also, remember, that 19 out of 20 were the guys who had to fall back on their handgun, then survived to return to friendly lines. Those whose .45's failed generally didn't come back to say "woops, it didn't work" because the Germans and the Nazis tended to cut them to ribbons with rifle fire.

how would you know that lowers the bar even for floor sitting
quarteerbacks imho

outta htis BS thread...
.. .
 
"Face it, a .40 S&W is nothing but a poor compromise on size, recoil and power which was forced on the FBI due to their female agents inability to deal with a 10mm."

This kind of argument is gettting on my nerves. I know of a lot of women that can take just as much as most guys. You need to tame down your macho-ness and take a look around. Yeah most women are 'weaker' than men, but last time I checked there's a lot of guys out there that aren't quite 'large' statured except in their gut. I bet you would have had a tough time telling the FBI agents ducking for cover from Bonnie Parker's B.A.R. that short statured women can't shoot.

bonnie&clyde.jpg
 
Blindjustice - how would I know if 1911 handgun failures didn't survive?

It was war. They didn't have a primary rifle or smg to shoot. If their handgun ultimately failed, I doubt that the dead would rise and go back to talk about how their 1911 autos didn't have the power to match a German Mauser or a Japanese Arisaka.

(I meant Germans and Japanese... been a long day writing...)
 
A little clarification - Copper said 19 of 20 incidents he heard of ended in one-shot stops.

Multiple factors -
1 - Soldiers who've been at war for a while may not be in the best of health. Japanese soldiers in island fighting were quite often emaciated, but still engaging in combat.
2 - Modern records show 65-70% or so for effectiveness on 230-grain FMJ ball. 19 incidents at 70% means 27 incidents total. One guy didn't have a perfect one shot stop, seven guys might not have made it back.
3 - Handgun combat was never considered common in any major war.
4 - Jeff Cooper, if he thought that 230-grain FMJ was perfectly adequate would:
4a) not have advocated 230-grain Flat point FMJ which had a much more aggressive profile for cutting through human flesh, thus increasing stopping power.
4b) not have developed the Mozambique drill.
4c) said he only carries a .45 because the .46 did not exist.

And if I said that the .45 was a worthless piece of crap, I wouldn't have given a laundry list of .45's that I like better than .40's, and even then, I omitted my absolute favorite .45, the Commander-sized 1911.
 
you know the caliber argument is actually a pretty burned out issue, anyone who says that one caliber is "inferior" i say go stand in a field and let someone shoot you with it. Whether it is a 300 win mag or a 22 it will very likely stop you in pretty short order. There are always the stories about they guy who took 30 40 cal hits and kept going, some are true some are bs. Fact of the matter is that any round placed into the only guaranteed "stopping zone" of brain and spinal cord severance will stop anyone fast. There is nothing left to argue about, this thread started out as a discussion about statistical ballistic efficiency comparisons and very quickly turned into a thread about "my favorite caliber is better then your favorite caliber" so why dont we all just get back to the point and come up with some actual hard facts and get back to something that people can learn from.
 
The point or my point at least

ALL,

My point in originally bringing up this thread was to see if anyone had the HEAVY BULLET IS BETTER stats or DEEPER PENETRATION IS BETTER stats. Although their has been some name calling, most of the comments seem to me to be ancedotal or opinion and are well argued.

If you do not agree with the MARSHALL & SANOW and the others, then that is your choice. I want the best stopping power in the particular gun that I am carrying with the most control and in some cases, concealability and M&S's work is the only one that I can find is supported by other studies.


In dealing with equipment, it is one variable that we can control BEFORE A FIGHT STARTS. TRAINING IS ANOTHER. ONCE A FIGHT STARTS, THEN WHATEVER YOU BROUGHT TO A FIGHT IS WHAT YOU WILL HAVE TO FIGHT WITH.
A SOCOM 16, AR-15 or 12 guage riot gun are useless if they are in my gun safe or the trunk of a vehicle in the parking lot when the fight starts.

I am only interested in this thread with carrying guns. I like the 1 1/2 pound rule for a belt carried and concealed pistol. In my experience, this weight of gun offers a compromise of comfort, concealibility and control. I tried a 2 1/4 pound (weight of a steel framed 1911) for a while and got really tired of it at the end of 10 hours or more.
I feel the 9m.m. +P+ offers the most power within my control limit.
An exception is with the H&K 2000 that I am issued. It really does have less felt recoil than other similar weight guns, much less than the GLOCK 22 that I owned.
If I exceed this recoil threshold, then my control and accuracy are effected.
In a heavier gun, I like the .40 S&W with 155 grain bullets. I do not know of any load that is more effective. At best, a .45ACP or .357 magnum will equal it, but not exceed. The 180 grain .40 S&W loads do not seem to offer any improvement over the 9m.m. +P, so why bother with more recoil and less capacity.
When, I have shot guns that exceed this limit, such as any 1 1/2 pound .45ACP with 200 or 230 grain loads, my recovery time between shots is longer than when I shoot 9m.m.
If you can get equal or near equal time between accurate shots with a .45ACP or 10 m.m., then that is fine as well. Can you do it with a 1.5 pound gun. Please note that this weight is not arbitrary. GLOCKS and similar guns have been huge sellers to LEO and civilian buyers. I think the weight has something to do with it.
For me and I am willing to bet most people, the 9m.m. +P is the best compromise between effectiveness and control.

Again, where MARSHALL & SANOW'S work is useful, is with backup guns. I often carry an alloy frame or 5 shot steel frame .38 Special. I want to know what works best.
Here recoil is a real factor. I find the .38 Special 158 LHP +P loads to be to hard on me. I can get away with the 125 grain JHP +P if I practice.
What is interesting here is that one of the cheapest loads is the best. The REMINGTON 125 grain semi-jacketed hollow point can be bought in WAL MART for $26.00 a 100 round box. That is a bargain, so I can afford to practice.


I will stick my two cents in on the female shooter debate. Most of the female officers I have worked with, did not shoot as well as I do. A few shot much better with 90% or better on their qualifications. Very few female officers I have known have been gun people, like us.
Now, most of the male officers cannot shoot as well as I do. Not suprising since they are NOT GUN ENTHUSIASTS EITHER. Some should not even be carrying a gun, but it is not my decision. I know, I would not want some of them backing me up in a confrontation. How many gun enthusiasts you will have working with you depends on where you work. Fewer in NEW YORK than MONTANA or TEXAS.

I have also worked with female officers that I would not have any problem with being partnered during a confrontation. Sometimes, the female officers are much better than male officers at calming a situation.

In my own opinion, the way a person deals with a confrontation is completely individual and goes back to personality, training, agency policy, agency hostility to action, how much sleep they have had, whether they are pulling their third double shift in a week and a numerous other factors. By far, the most important factor may be field experince. Remember, a gunfight is just one manifestation of a confrontation.

Quick FEMALE ancedote. I recently had to serve an NTA (federal summons) on a belligerent female who was 6 feet 2 and weighed well over 250 pounds. The female officer I was with tried to calm this person without success.
The subject bad mouthed and threatened me which I ignored. However, if she had become physical, I would not even have tried to subdue her by hand. I would gone straight for my baton. So much for woman being the weaker sex!

Jim
 
I will stick my two cents in on the female shooter debate. Most of the female officers I have worked with, did not shoot as well as I do. A few shot much better with 90% or better on their qualifications. Very few female officers I have known have been gun people, like us.

I respectfully beg to differ.

Understand I was born in the mid 50s, and was raised as I was and mentored as I was.

Everyone carried a handgun, as you said, one cannot go around with a long gun slung.

Handguns back then tended to fit more hands better, both men with smaller hand and ladies with smaller hands.
Add-
We had Veterans , both ladies and gents, from previous wars and we had Polio victims, so hands were not the the only part of gun fit to user, also amputees, hand , wrist, arm strength and other factors.

So the offering in revolvers and semi's with the Rule of 96 that is from shotgunning, applies to handguns, if one thinks about gun weight, to recoil curve of bullet weight of calibers being fired.

Shot placement was a big deal back in the day, being able to get the first shot off and place it, was important.

Now the ladies and gents, even kids, chose gun fit, and recoil curve to them.

Police were pretty much using S&W and Colt Revolvers, and these guns fit hands well they did back then, and still do today.
Two other platforms over all these years in semis, are the 1911 and BHP.

These 4 guns, two revolvers, and two semis, will fit 90% of all hands and allow the user to place shots quickly and effectively, which is a huge component in my book ( how raised) in stopping a threat.

What has happened over the years, is folks are not being raised with firearms in the household, and therefore not as proficient with carrying and shooting- both men and women.

In the old days, everyone was raised with guns, knew how to shoot, and it did not matter if lady , gent, kid, elderly , healthy or physically limited.

Another huge factor is, while folks grew up with guns, they did not put all the focus on just "gun" to stay safe, other skill sets and mindsets were important too and folks were more "well rounded" in all this.

Not just civilians, Police, as the same Police that shot 50 yard quals, both ladies and gents, did not think "gun" or "round count" as the only tools to stay safe.

Today, many could care less about a gun, it is just something else to have to wag around doing a job.
The gun is not about the officer, instead what a dept can get for price and package on keeping the guns maintained.

Guns do not fit ladies or gents, and add not being raised around guns...something else to wag aroung, and "oh crap, I gotta shoot this damn thing to qual, then the armorer is the only one that can do a damn thing with it, and I have to be in court to give testimony and ..."

Shotguns are the same way...

Having assisted on private ranges - among other things my life, experiences and observations include...

The gals were fine and dandy with revolvers in .38spl and .357, be these S&W J and K frames or Colts, so were the guys.
The day one Dept went to Glocks, it was downright nasty out there with all the hate and fussing.
Ditto for the HKs, and that day, some folks lost any confidence they might of had, when the guns would not run, and this repeated itself with the gun shooting once, maybe twice and the chambers were funky and the cases were stuck.
Sigs...
"Just throw the first shot in the dirt and maybe the damn gun will hit something the second shot" - was said up and down the line.

Same gals that would shoot .357s with .357 loads, and shoot J frames that would scare many...
Some serious fussing going on and some gals did not have to change guns, they kept their revolvers, including the gals using .41 mag and .44 mag.

Yep.
Some gals toted .41 and .44 and could flat scare the daylights out of folks.
Guys used these too.
State and Sheriff officers used these guns...

Nobody likes the sharp recoil of the .40, not the officers or CCW students.
Oh some serious cussing when BHP came out in .40, that was wrong!

9mm and 45ACP, these were the prefererred guns by ladies and gents, in BHP and 1911 for the semi shooters.

The way we saw and see it boils down to 3 kinds of officers, it does not matter if lady or gent.

1. Seasoned shooters , that do not put all things into "gun or ammo" and believe all we need for handguns and calibers was mfg by 1955.

2. Folks that were not raised with guns, and just something else they have to wag and mess with and the damn things have to be qual'd with.

3. Kewl folks, that are into image and status and the gun is not a tool to stay safe, as they cannot shoot, won't put time into to shoot, but the latest greatest gun and equipment is a ego thing.
 
"I am saying the .45ACP does not work as well as 9m.m. +P or .40 S&W caliber 155 grain JHP or .357 magnum 125 grain JHP. Do you have evidence to the contrary?"

A .45 FMJ in the heart will work better than a 9m.m. +P or .40 S&W caliber 155 grain JHP or .357 magnum 125 grain JHP in the shoulder.

How much more evidence do I need? And of course, a good hit with any of those rounds you listed will work just as well. After all, he won't be any more dead taking a fatal shot with a 9mm+P than he would taking a .45 FMJ.
 
"I want the best stopping power in the particular gun that I am carrying.."
Then practice with the particular platform that you prefer.
"I feel the 9m.m. +P+ offers the most power within my control limit."
The 9mm is a very adequate choice for defensive uses and has some distinct tactical advantages. I am not criticizing your choice of caliber or bullet type. They will all work if the shooter does his part. But the cartridge with the best "stopping power" isn't some magic talisman against bad guys. You need to do your part. A good shooter with FMJ is going to stop his assailant faster than a poor shooter with the latest "death dealer hyper velocity super hollowpoints." For a defensive load, I like any hollowpoint bullet that has a flat end, as even if the hollowpoint fills up and does not expand, the blunt edge creates more tissue damage and wound channel. Certain platforms will not feed certain bullet types. The defense is in the use of the tool, not what the tool has in it.
 
I've been reading some books about special ops in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and one thing that struck me as totally crazy is how many American GI's took AK-47 rounds to the head and lived through it - in fact, some were still fighting after an ak round 'blew a 4 inch hole out of the back of his head, allowing us to see the grey matter of his brain'. Pistols have nothing on a good rifle round; they're all anemic, and people survive all kinds of wounds. Point being, stopping power is hit/miss, even with a rifle round.
 
The 9mm is a very adequate choice for defensive uses and has some distinct tactical advantages. I am not criticizing your choice of caliber or bullet type. They will all work if the shooter does his part. But the cartridge with the best "stopping power" isn't some magic talisman against bad guys. You need to do your part. A good shooter with FMJ is going to stop his assailant faster than a poor shooter with the latest "death dealer hyper velocity super hollowpoints." For a defensive load, I like any hollowpoint bullet that has a flat end, as even if the hollowpoint fills up and does not expand, the blunt edge creates more tissue damage and wound channel. Certain platforms will not feed certain bullet types. The defense is in the use of the tool, not what the tool has in it.
that deserves to be read again
 
mavracer - it's been said in at least three or four threads.

It's the carpenter, not the nails, to use another term.

If handed a 1911 off the bat with 230-grain FMJ, my one request would be to install an ambidextrous safety. If not, a 1911 is so easy to shoot, I can get nearly as good groups with my right paw as my smart one.

Most every 9mm or .40 on the market is sufficiently ambidextrous that no such mods would be needed.
 
Doug,

I know just liked the way Phil worded it.
I feal your southpaw pain,broke my right arm three times in grade school,it's a right handed world.
you can also hand me about anything and I can shoot it well.It'll take me a sec to find the sight picture on a glock, dang grip angle. and big double stacks give my short fat fingers fits especially ones with long DA reachs.but gimme a beretta 92 or a glock 21 and it'll be on IF necessary.
It ain't always the dog in the fight but the fight in the dog that matters most.
 
Phil DeGraves,

Great Posts, thank you.

My contention is folks should spend more time with Software not Hardware.

I was mentored that shooting is 90% Mental and 10% Physical.
Physical being the gun, and loads, and other equipment.
Once one finds what fits them, the loads that feed, extract, repeat with mags (semi) and shoots projectiles point of aim/point of impact (POA/POI), all this Physical - stick with it, don't change it, just be one with it, and don't worry about it.


That 90% Mental is that important, and never ever steal from the Mental for the Physical part.

That is why that old man will beat one like a drum with a older firearm that is well worn, against a younger fella with a new gun.
That handgun, rifle,or shotgun, fits them, and they know it like a body part and they have the Mental aspect

That is why a criminal will kill someone with a .79 screwdriver from a pawn shop.
Mental game is such, they know how to read people, places and things and will be upon someone so fast, and kill them with that .79 screwdriver before the victim ever knew they were near, and they were targeted.

Even if the victim has a $300 tactical knife clipped to pocket, a $3000 dollar custom gun , with hi capacity mag and spare mags of the most devastating handgun ammunition.

This will happen to a shooter, CCW-er, a shooting instructor, or someone with hours of training.
It has...

90% mental, 10% physical.

Beware the person that shoots one gun - they know it!

Just like the criminal knows that screwdriver, tire tool, baseball ball, piece of rebar, broomstick, ...
 
Stopping power is a myth where a pistol is used. No semiautomatic can be loaded to the pressures of a revolver. However, I have seen men killed with both.
In the 1961-63 I was a LEO. we were not allowed to load our revolvers with any thing by RN 38's or WC. No Hp's, but we could load armor piercing to bust the block of a car. I always felt under armed with a 38. Today I carry a 44 Spl. that weighs 20 onces. A few post ago the posted showed a picture of his 44 Spl ad said he used 5.6grs Unique and a 220gr bullet. Seem like a light load for the 44Spl.My prictice loan is 5gr greendot and 240gr SWC. I load for SD with a CorBon load that is on the ligh side for 44 Spl. a 65gr bullet pushed to 1050 at the muzzle which in my gun would be about 890fpm. On the Hatcher scale it would be a 55 in stopping power. I would use hand loads, but I purchased a 1000 Winchester LP primers locally and they are to unreliable for SD. As soon as I can get me some CCI primers I will load up a good load a soft lead 250gr SWC pushed by11.5gr Accur#9 with a rating of 65 on the Hatcher scale. They do make a 454 in a light pistol that you could load up some mean 45LC rounds for if you can find some good brass. The point is that the bigger the gun the more dangerous. A good big man always beats a good little man. I think my next gun will be a 454.
 
Sm-i Agree To Disagree

SM,

I believe we will have to agree to disagree.

I grew up in the 60's in New York City before my family moved to the south. Men rarely owned guns and if they did, they were either .22's or deer rifles. Very few people besides cops and crooks carried guns. You had to have the money of Donald TRUMP or the influence of William F. BUCKLEY to get a concealed carry permit.

Cops in New York WERE TAUGHT TO SHOOT IF THEY SAW SOMEONE HOLDING ANYTHING BUT A BLUE STEEL COLT OR S&W. They were sure no one else but a cop would have a gun unless they were a bad guy.

Cops shot at the 50 yard line using .38 wadcutters and cocking the hammer to shoot single action. That was when much of the push for close range, moving target and action shooting really began to develop.

In the much more gun oriented south, I saw veteran cops who could not get off their six shots in 6 seconds, sometimes not even 5 shots. I also saw cops play with their guns after drinking and sometimes just when they were bored. Many officers did not carry extra ammo for a reload.


SM, I must have different hands than you. I just bought an excellent condition 2nd generation COLT Cobra with original stocks. It was absolutely awful to shoot with +P. I have gotten new stock since then, so I will actually be able to shoot it.

When I started in law enforcement, we were issued S&W model 13 revolvers with round butt, wooden grips and 3 inch barrel's. They handled well, but 12 out of the 47 issued to my class had problems ranging from torqued screws (mine) to being completely froze up.
I shot this gun just fine with wadcutters. The guy in the next lane MISSED THE TARGET WITH 6 SHOTS FROM 7 YARDS. He was from the 50's as well, but was terrified of guns.
When we started using magnums, it was work and I hated it. I bought a pair of rubber grips before I even graduated. The instructors were all telling us that we could purchase them and should. The service I worked for would not even issue us speed loaders, I had to buy my own. Few other officers carried them. We were supposed to load from our 3x2 pouch.
Almost every centerfire revolver that I have since then has gotten rubber grips because they DO FIT MY HAND.

Dispite not being a veteran, I had no problems outshooting the older guys who had not fired a handgun since Korea or Vietnam. This is not a put down of veterans, just an observation that military sevice two decades earlier did not make someone a good shot.

People who hunted and were familiar with firearms did much better, but not always.

The best improvement in the average shooting ability occured when my agency replaced everything with the BERETTA 96D. Everyone was measured to see if the gun would fit. Everyone got 6 mags for the gun.
We went to a new 72 round qualification regime and all officers who did not qualify lost their gun and went on restricted duty.
You either went to remedial or passed the next time at range. We then drew from the holster EVERY time. We did emergency and tactical reloads. Things really did improve, except that the 96D was so big and heavy to carry off duty.


I would like to point to the Jim ZUMBO controversey. For those that missed it, ZUMBO was the well known hunting editor of OUTDOOR LIFE magazine. In 2007, he made a EXTREMELY ANTI ASSAULT RIFLE statement on his website. He called for banning AR-15 from hunting fields. It literally stopped his carreer in its tracks.
The point being, ZUMBO is not anti gun, but like many hunters, he did not equate shooting with AR-15's, self defense or competition as the gun enthusiasts in this collumn do.
I have met and spoken with many hunters who do not even own a handgun. Some of them share even more anti-gun views than ZUMBO spoke.

I think that gun owner and users now are much more defense and handgun oriented than they have been in a century. Now we debate which caliber and what type of shooting is best. We try different holsters and different guns to try to improve our ability. We obtain permits and carry concealed. Did the old time shooters ever try a night fire exercise?

I personally choose the 9m.m. and .40 S&W over the.357 magnum, .45ACP and .45Long Colt that I also own because I think they are better suited to my needs. I also push the 9m.m. and .40 S&W because my obervation indicates that they will do the job as well as the .45ACP without the costs of a heavier gun and greater recoil to me and most of the people I work with. I have seen what happens when the wrong gun for non shooters is pushed by people who prefer something bigger or more powerful (anyone remember the failure of the .41 magnum in being adopted by the police).

Jim
 
Golden - I think you and SM both agree.

At least he's saying it's training first, then better technology.

As you mentioned, there were cops with guns who feared and hated their firearms.

Oh, nevermind. Different reply than the immediately previous post by SM.
 
Frankly, anything to scare/harm/stop a bad guy is good. I really don't care what I use as long as he stops or gets the hell away from my family/house.
 
I believe the only "guarantee" of stopping power is the CNS (Central Nervous System) shot. To substantiate this point, I will retell the story of President Lincoln's death and that of his assassin. Lincoln took a bullet to the brain and was immediate incapacitated. He died hours later. His assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was eventually found and received a bullet wound to the neck which damaged his spinal cord. Booth was instantly paralyzed and died hours later also.

The point of this historical narrative is to demonstrate that only damage to the CNS will produce instant "stopping power". Failing such an injury, an armed assailant may have the stamina and determination to continue fighting, even if that is for a short period of time. The infamous 1986 FBI shootout in Miami, Florida supports this view. Remember, other wounds may or may not produce the desired stopping power sought. I believe this is a postion to which everyone can subscribe.


Timthinker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top