Handgun Caliber Selection Insight

Skribs · Jan 4, 2012

None of these variables are accounted for by the term, "stopping power". Therin lies the fallacy of such a construct.

You're arguing over the term now. LoosedHorse described "stopping power" as the ability to stop a threat. Therefore, what you hit and how much damage you do does affect stopping power.

Of course, hence the problem with the term "stopping power". It considers very little of what actually happens when bullets hit bodies.

Once again, you're using the term, and ignoring what we're actually talking about.

Almost everything that we deal with in psychology is intangible- feelings, emotions, etc. Here we are dealing with a physical manifestation (incapactiation, tissue damage, death) of an effect or set of effects. Two different disciplines that have little to do with one another.

We are also trying to predict the future, which is intangible. In order to compare how much damage two bullets will do, you have to assume they hit the same spot (otherwise it's like comparing a car drag racing uphill to a car drag racing downhill). In order to really test it tangibly, you'd have to run a computer simulation showing every possible hit (including oblique angles, potential barriers, etc) and see what kind of damage the bullet would cause with such a hit.

You could answer that way, but that ignores what I percieve to be as "a bit warmer than yesterday". If I grew up in a tropical climate and you in an Acrtic clime, your perception may seem negligible to me.

The problem in this case is that, based on the research we have available, everyone values things differently. Some look at the volume of the hole. I personally look more at the surface area of the wound channel as opposed to the volume (which actually puts different calibers closer together). Others look at energy transfer, others ignore everything related to the bullet and instead look at the recoil.

So if I say my formula is Surface Area / Recoil, you may say "nope, only recoil and magazine capacity matter." Or "nope, it's volume, not surface area." Or you may even think recoil doesn't matter because you're only going to shoot once.

EDIT: Loosed, I think you're just taking a step off the end of it. My goal is to stop the attacker. By selecting a handgun caliber, I am trying to select the most effective tool for the job. The tool does its job by penetrating X inches and putting a hole Y wide into the attacker.

481 · Jan 4, 2012

Loosedhorse said:
I go hunting frequently )). I can predict the rough size of my quarry, the location of its "good hit" area, and the range; from personal experience of that of other hunters, I can select a caliber, load, and arm that I can predict will be "effective." All predictions.

Sure, they are all predictions of conditions that have nothing to do with how the bullet will perform.

Loosedhorse said:
I can predict the rough size of my quarry...

Immaterial. Unless the bullet hits CNS or vital organs that will result in the immediate incapacitation of the animal/assailant, the size of the animal/assailant matters not one one bit.

Loosedhorse said:
I can predict....the location of its "good hit" area, and the range....

All of these variables are also immaterial. The bullet must be placed where it will destroy a structure or structures that will result in the irresistible cessation of the animal's/assailant's ability to flee/act intentionally. The ability of the bullet to do its jobs depends only on these things.

Loosedhorse said:
I can select a caliber, load, and arm that I can predict will be "effective." All predictions.

Once more, without proper shot placement and a definition as to what constitues "effective", this is all immmaterial.

This is the problem with the term "stopping power"- it assumes the effects of bullets striking anatomy to be invariable when in fact even slight differences in placement will create vastly differing effects (consider a bullet going through the brain of deer and one that just strikes and avulses its lower jaw or two shots that go high through the thoracic cavity one hitting the spine, the other hitting the upper portion of the lungs). Just a couple of inches can make a HUGE difference.

These variables are all ignored by the term "stopping power".

481 · Jan 4, 2012

Skribs said:
You're arguing over the term now. LoosedHorse described "stopping power" as the ability to stop a threat. Therefore, what you hit and how much damage you do does affect stopping power.

Of course I am debating the term, its validity (lack of) and that the term and its usage fails to consider the valuable aspect of shot placement. This is the fallacy of "stopping power". It assumes that shot placement is invariable in producing the effects we seek (incapacitation).

Skribs said:
We are also trying to predict the future, which is intangible. In order to compare how much damage two bullets will do, you have to assume they hit the same spot (otherwise it's like comparing a car drag racing uphill to a car drag racing downhill). In order to really test it tangibly, you'd have to run a computer simulation showing every possible hit (including oblique angles, potential barriers, etc) and see what kind of damage the bullet would cause with such a hit.

Precisely.

How can you predict the "stopping power" of a projectile (that must be guided by the shooting ability of someone under the life-threatening stress of an armed encounter) if you have no way to tell where and what it is going to strike?

Skribs said:
The problem in this case is that, based on the research we have available, everyone values things differently. Some look at the volume of the hole. I personally look more at the surface area of the wound channel as opposed to the volume (which actually puts different calibers closer together). Others look at energy transfer, others ignore everything related to the bullet and instead look at the recoil.

So if I say my formula is Surface Area / Recoil, you may say "nope, only recoil and magazine capacity matter." Or "nope, it's volume, not surface area." Or you may even think recoil doesn't matter because you're only going to shoot once.

It is not what anyone values differently, but that the threat is brought to an end. Contrived formulae like M&S's formula and Hatcher's RSP fail to address the importance of shot placement assuming it to be immaterial to terminal effect at best and invariable at worst.

Skribs said:
The tool does its job by penetrating X inches and putting a hole Y wide into the attacker.

Exactly. (assuming that it hits something important enough to matter)

Loosedhorse · Jan 4, 2012

The tool does its job by penetrating X inches and putting a hole Y wide into the attacker.

This statement is crucial and interesting.

First: it ignores shot placement--wasn't that a big knock against "stopping power"? May I assume that this hole must pass through a vital structure to "do its job"? If not, what other holes stop the attacker?

Second, it states as an absolute that stopping (if that is "the job") can only be accomplished by hole-drilling (presumably into a vital structure); no other mechanism counts. But then: what is the stopping mechanism for the majority of handgun shootings, where a stop is achieved without a lethal hole?

Third, the FBI's statement is that the hole must be at least 12 inches long; the diameter of the hole is less defined (the FBI uses this standard for .223 ammo, too)--what is the experimental--not theoretical--proof that this is the "right sized" hole that will produce a stop (at what level of probability)?

In short, the statment "The tool does its job by penetrating X inches and putting a hole Y wide" is true...if we decide to define the job as the drilling of that hole, instead of producing a stop.

481 · Jan 4, 2012

Loosedhorse said:
The tool does its job by penetrating X inches and putting a hole Y wide into the attacker.

Click to expand...

This statement is crucial and interesting.

First: it ignores shot placement--wasn't that a big knock against "stopping power"? May I assume that this hole must pass through a vital structure to "do its job"? If not, what other holes stop the attacker?

Second, it states as an absolute that stopping (if that is "the job") can only be accomplished by hole-drilling (presumably into a vital structure); no other mechanism counts. But then: what is the stopping mechanism for the majority of handgun shootings, where a stop is achieved without a lethal hole?

Third, the FBI's statement is that the hole must be at least 12 inches long; the diameter of the hole is less defined (the FBI uses this standard for .223 ammo, too)--what is the experimental--not theoretical--proof that this is the "right sized" hole that will produce a stop (at what level of probability)?

In short, the statment "The tool does its job by penetrating X inches and putting a hole Y wide" is true...if we decide to define the job as the drilling of that hole, instead of producing a stop.

LH, you are confusing the mechanism (crush cavity volume) for the effect (incapacitation).

Out for the evening. G'night guys.

Loosedhorse · Jan 4, 2012

nothing to do with how the bullet will perform

No. A selection of load and prediction of distance have everything to do with how the bullet will perform.

Immaterial.

No. Consideration of the quarry's size is crucial to proper caliber and load selection.

Once more, without proper shot placement and a definition as to what constitues "effective", this is all immmaterial.

You miss the point. Even with proper shot placement, a poor caliber/load choice won't stop the animal; a middling one will stop him after a good, long run; and a good one will stop him right there or after a very short run. There's your definitions of varying levels of effectiveness.

481, a "12-inch minimum penetration" isn't going to stop anyone without proper shot placement. You feel free to assume the load's job is to penetrate, and the shooter's job is to place it properly so it penetrates the right thing.

Similarly, I can assume that for "a good stopping load", its job is to stop the attack when placed properly, and the shooter's job is to place it properly.

Parallel situations.

LH, you are confusing the mechanism (crush cavity volume) for the effect (incapacitation).

Not at all. I am keeping separate the concepts of "stopping" and "crush cavity volume" as distinct entities. You are either equating them, or saying that "stopping" doesn't exist--it's hard to tell which.

Skribs · Jan 4, 2012

LH, in my statement I was assuming decent shot placement. What I was saying is that in order to produce a physiological stop (because a psychological stop is largely irrelevant of caliber), I am picking a tool that penetrates X inches. In order to improve my chances, I am picking a tool that also causes a hole of Y caliber.

I ignore placement, because it's like saying "When judging the maximum speed of the car, you have to press on the gas." I'm assuming good placement at the start of this. If a caliber cannot achieve good placement, I wouldn't even consider it in the mix. However, if you hand me a .22 LR, a .45 ACP, or a 12-gauge slug in a half-decent platform, I can achieve good placement (at least, I can in the range, never been in a gunfight).

When I'm comparing the caliber, I'm comparing what's different. I'm not going to compare all the variables that are going to be the same irregardless of caliber. Yes, those variables will be different in every shooting, but you have to compare apples to apples. Compare the heart shot to the heart shot. Compare the hand shot to the hand shot, etc.

When I learned in school how to do experiments, you don't take and change multiple variables between experiments. You change 1 variable at a time. In this case, there are a lot of variables that change when you swap calibers, but since they are all linked under the cartridge, you can say "9mm" as one variable and ".45" as another. You then have to compare the two in the exact same situation, which is nearly impossible to do outside of a lab setting.

That is why I am ignoring placement. Because I have to assume the same placement to actually compare the two. That placement may be the brain, the heart, the lungs, a chest hit that doesn't hit any vital organs, or something else. But in order to accurately compare, you have to compare the difference in the cartridge on each possible hit.

It is a lot simpler to just use ballistics gel and compare the difference for that, which is why I assume people use that method instead.

David E · Jan 4, 2012

Prosser said:
.

David E. posted you can be as fast with a .45 as a 9MM. This is not born out by shooting games.

Au contraire!

To qualify for major, the favorite caliber is .38 Super, with a 100 grain bullet at 1500 fps, IIRC.

You recall incorrectly. That load would score "minor" all week long and twice on Sunday.

It pretty much doesn't recoil, and comp shooters use it for a reason: it's the lowest recoiling round that qualifies as major.

Also incorrect. First of all, a .38 Super is only eligible for "major" scoring in the Open Division. This is the only division where they are allowed to run Dot sights and....(wait for it).........compensators! They like light bullets going as fast as possible to generate enough gas to run the compensators effectively and THAT is why they don't have muzzle flip. (they still kick, but straight back)

Another big reason they use .38 Super is capacity, but that's beside the point.

I don't see .45 ACP being anywhere close. The lightest bullet I have loads for in .45 ACP is 155 grains, and, 1100 fps with most powders.

Don't see your point here. You don't see .45's in Open ever these days. Lower capacity and less gas to run compensators.

I'd never shoot your load in Limited or Single Stack divisions, as there are far better ones.

But I was comparing factory 9mm to factory .45 out of standard guns. With the proper technique and enough practice, you can shoot either one equally well with standard loads from similar guns.

Loosedhorse · Jan 4, 2012

a physiological stop (because a psychological stop is largely irrelevant of caliber), I am picking a tool that penetrates X inches

I suspect by "physiological stop" you mean disrupting a vital structure. I understand deciding to depend on that mechanism, even though it seems to be the mechanism that is active in the minority of handgun stops.

"Psychological stop" is an odd term, bringing up images of a wimpy attacker calling it quits from a minor boo-boo. And we do know such stops happen. But you seem to use the term to encompass all non-fatal stops, or at least all non-fatal stops that leave the attacker conscious and with at least one non-destroyed hand (if the attacker has a gun).

By this definition, someone who is Tazered has been psychologically stopped. So has someone who has been pepper-sprayed, or knocked to the ground unable to breath from a good body blow--or from a "low blow." And of course, we would both agree that someone who "feels" he's been shot and thinks it's bad enough that it shifts his focus from fighting to self-inventory has been "psychologically stopped."

Why should we suppose that an attacker hit non-vitally with a 10mm HP at 1500fps will be not more likely to "stop and take inventory" than an attacker hit with a .25 ACP FMJ non-vitally (or vitally!). If a "solar-plexus hit" effect can occasionally happen with a handgun bullet, or a remote CNS effect from "ballistic pressure wave," why would we think that one caliber is just as likely to cause them as another?

In other words: I'm not sure that some "psychological [non-fatal] stops" aren't physiological stops; and I'm not sure that caliber doesn't matter in producing a psychological stop, however it is defined.

When I learned in school how to do experiments, you don't take and change multiple variables between experiments.

And in real life, we take the data as it comes, changed variables and all. Outside of a lab or study using a randomized control group (as I think we agree), we're not going to be able to get data that isolates one variable at a time for real shootings. And that's where the "stops" data is; not in gelatin.

That is why I am ignoring placement.

Fair enough; as I said, most discussions of load effectiveness (whether measured by penetration or stop) presume the shooter "did his job"--a miss with the best round in the world is only going to stop some attackers.

But we should keep in mind that for (perhaps) all of us, rapid accurate fire is easier with a 9mm than a .50 AE, so getting more shots on target is easier with some calibers than others. Introduce flinch for some shooters, and getting even one shot on target will be a caliber-dependent problem.

Not sure how best to factor that in "formally", but it is clearly a factor in caliber selection for many shooters.

Skribs · Jan 4, 2012

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Since I do not have a lot of experience shooting people, I rely on my readings. Of all the ones I've read, this one seems to be the most level-headed. On page 8, he discusses the various methods in which firearms "stop" the target.

You bring up tasers, and I would argue that it fits my case. A taser does its job by disrupting the nervous system, which does cause a physiological stop.

And in real life, we take the data as it comes, changed variables and all. Outside of a lab or study using a randomized control group (as I think we agree), we're not going to be able to get data that isolates one variable at a time for real shootings. And that's where the "stops" data is; not in gelatin.

But then you have to analyze the data and understand what it all means. "I saw someone empty a clip with a .45 and he didn't hit the BG, but someone else took 1 shot from a .22 and went down" says nothing about the effectiveness of the .45, but the effectiveness of the first shooter with a .45.

But we should keep in mind that for (perhaps) all of us, rapid accurate fire is easier with a 9mm than a .50 AE, so getting more shots on target is easier with some calibers than others. Introduce flinch for some shooters, and getting even one shot on target will be a caliber-dependent problem.

While this is true, you still need to be able to compare 1 9mm to 1 .50 AE to then be able to compare 4 9mm to 1 .50 AE. Although the cumulative effect will be different, you have to have a baseline to start from.

EDIT:

Immaterial. Unless the bullet hits CNS or vital organs that will result in the immediate incapacitation of the animal/assailant, the size of the animal/assailant matters not one one bit.

The size of the quarry still matters, because you choose a load that's appropriate for that quarry. Would you use .223 varmint loads on a bear? How about a 12-gauge slug on a rabbit? In the latter scenario, it probably doesn't matter where you hit the rabbit.

357SIG · Jan 4, 2012

Too much has been said since I last visited here, so I'm not going to attempt to hit it all.

First, as I said, I don't have a database of names of everything I've read, so I simply cannot give you titles, names, etc. to look up in a library. I have read published studies over the course of years, seen and given presentations, and have had discussions with others. I do not remember specific articles and their citations. Most people don't keep track of these things, and I'm one of them. The great thing is that there is no shortage of information out there on penetrating trauma.

Second, I saw somewhere in there where someone quoted my statement about the different rounds being equal, then presented two calibers (that are assumed very different in effectiveness), then asked me how it could be so. The problem is that there is NO evidence to prove that one round is more effective than the other, when it actually strikes a person. It is absolutely impossible to prove this, due to the variables presented in each situation. Anything more is conjecture.

As for the pressure wave, I have read a thing or two on it, forgotten most of it, and really don't see it making any major difference in the real world. Most of it is in theory, and has no real following or peer review by others in the field. Once again, variables will be so great, from one shooting to another, from one hit to another (on the same body), and from the external environment, that it is not reliable.

Let's just say you ignore what is/has been demonstrated in the field, as observed and explained by true experts, physics, and biology. There is still no statistic that can ever be made, and no experiment that can ever apply, to a real-world shooting, because there is no way to control the real-world environment well enough to get factual results. I'm going to list some variables that rapidly change from one shooting to another:

body habitus of victim - affects the size and location of organs throughout the body.
strength/endurance of victim - affects what a person can "take"
mental state of victim - affects a person's willingness to quit, or give up
pathological conditions present in victim - can affect how the body responds to the trauma. Examples include: blood disorders, bone growth issues, neurological issues, etc. Additionally, some conditions might actually aid in response to trauma.
foreign objects, or prostheses present in victim - can aid in stopping a bullet, allow one to pass easier, or cause more severe damage when hit. Can include something as simple as a stent, or as big as a total hip replacement.
Presence or absence of foreign substances - Effects of alcohol, prescription (legal) drugs, or illegal drugs to the body. Some help, some hinder. Effects can change based on the quantity present AND what that particular human body can tolerate.
Distance from which the round is fired - varies from round-to-round, even when shot from a stationary position in the same shooting.
angle of impact - can affect exactly which part of an organ is hit, affecting the outcome slightly.
exact site of impact on the organ - even in the same general area (as pointed out above)
thickness of tissue, or size of bone - can affect passing bullets
amount of tissue traversed - esp. before hitting a vital
effect differing tissue has on the bullet - how it affects HP mushrooming, deceleration, etc. Bone can completely destroy a JHP cavity, while lung tissue is aerated, slowing expansion.
velocity changes from round-to-round - EVERY round will leave the barrel at a different velocity.
clothing worn - even two similar T-shirts can be made of different material at different thicknesses.
age of ammunition used - powder breakdown can change velocity

I am absolutely certain that this list is non-exhaustive.

So, you want to measure extremely minute details, such as the difference in effectiveness between a 9mm 127 gr. Ranger JHP and a 124 gr. Speer Gold Dot. How are you going to overcome these variables, which ABSOLUTELY wash-out the differences you are looking for? How about a 147 gr. 9mm vs. a 180 gr. .40 S&W? Same case...

The point is this; people are chasing a dream with this topic. EVEN IF you could find a slight difference in effectiveness in a controlled lab, you could never reap the benefits, due to the nature of a shooting...extremely high variation. What works in one, may have no effect in another.

Now, add in the science behind the body's response to trauma, which is remarkable to say the least. Also, consider what type of damage is severe (hitting a vital organ, including blood supply and CNS), vs. what type of damage is minimal (cavitation effect, energy dump, hitting non-vital areas as a whole). Then consider which severe injuries can incapacitate in a timely manner (seconds to minutes). How do you overcome all of this and choose the "best" caliber/bullet combination?

What happens in the real world? People get shot in the head with a .45 caliber pistol and survive, while some get shot in the head with a .22 LR and die. Some can take a .44 Spl to the back of the head and live (one "Son of Sam" victim). People take 17 rounds of .40 Ranger SXT to the chest and abdomen and fight for a long time (Pete Soulis incident in Jax, FL). People take full cylinders of .357 Magnum at close range with no effect, only to kill the officer with a single .22 LR pistol round in the armpit (Trooper Mark Coates, SCHP). Responding officers have to fire 106 rounds, peppering the attacker with 27 .40 and .223 rounds, before he breaks off the fight and dies nearly 1 hr later (George Deeb in Hazleton, PA). I used these cases simply because they are easy to look up on the internet. There are infinitely many more out there. I personally saw a guy who was shot in the abdomen at contact range with a .22 LR pistol. He nearly died from blood loss. I saw another guy who was shot in the back of the head at close range (caliber unknown) survive with nearly a full recovery.

Skribs · Jan 4, 2012

What would have happened if the Son of Sam victim took a .38? What would have happened if the FL incident they used 9mm or .45 instead of .40? What would happen if Coates took a .357 instead of a .22?

You are right, .357, in the variables you presented, and those do fall along the lines of what I was saying. The only real way to compare would be a computer simulation that compares all of those variables, one at a time.
Well...I would take out a couple of variables, specifically those related to how well the person tolerates pain. LH did bring up a good point with how a hit to the solarplexus can affect someone, though, so maybe those should stay in.

However, the fact that these variables exist doesn't mean that we can't approach an answer, and it doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. It does mean that it is harder to find the answer, and as a result people simplify the list to make it easier for them to figure out what they want. This is why it is hard to come to an agreement. But that doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

481 · Jan 4, 2012

Loosedhorse said:
Even with proper shot placement, a poor caliber/load choice won't stop the animal; a middling one will stop him after a good, long run; and a good one will stop him right there or after a very short run. There's your definitions of varying levels of effectiveness.

You've offered no definition of "effectiveness" in your statement above. In fact, you've introduced four more undefined terms, "poor", "middling" and "good" as they relate to "proper" caliber as a definition of "effectiveness".

What criteria must be satisfied for a caliber/load to be deemed as being "proper"?

What constitutes "poor", "middling" and "good" "effectiveness"?

And how does one differentiate between a "poor", "middling" and "good" caliber/load? For example, whitetail deer have been taken with the .30-30, the .308, the .30-06 and the .300 Winchester Magnum cartridges, cartridges that offer a wide span of qualities (KE, momentum, bullet construction, trajectory, bullet mass, recoil, etc.). Are these all "proper" calibers/loads and how do they fall into different "categories" ("poor", "middling" and "good") that you've established above or are they all in the same category?

Where does the .223 fall in these categories? Used with the heavier projectiles available it has been used to take whitetail deer. Is it a "poor", "middling" and "good" load?

Upon what attribute(s) (KE, momentum, bullet construction, trajectory, bullet mass, recoil, something else? None of the above?) do you assign these calibers/loads to their respective categories?

Loosedhorse said:
481, a "12-inch minimum penetration" isn't going to stop anyone without proper shot placement. You feel free to assume the load's job is to penetrate, and the shooter's job is to place it properly so it penetrates the right thing.

Similarly, I can assume that for "a good stopping load", its job is to stop the attack when placed properly, and the shooter's job is to place it properly.

Parallel situations. I am keeping separate the concepts of "stopping" and "crush cavity volume" as distinct entities. You are either equating them, or saying that "stopping" doesn't exist--it's hard to tell which.

Of course, 12 inches of penetration isn't going to stop anyone without proper shot placement. That's been my point all along. The term "stopping power" assumes that placement is a given or invariable, a fact that both you and I cannot deny. That is the flaw, the fallacy of the term "stopping power"; it assumes way too much and never offers a definition of the "power" that a projectile possesses to bring an assailant to a "stop".

To be clear, I believe in "stopping" (incapacitating) a threat. What I do not believe is that an ambiguous term like "stopping power" has any real meaning or value when examined in the light of day and common sense.

Loosedhorse: said:
Why does it require units?

What I'm talking about (others can speak for themselves) is effectiveness; perhaps especially how long an attacker remains aggressive, or how far an animal travels, after taking "a good hit."

It is a quality (not necessarily a quantity) that most seem to understand intuitively. Since you are on about units--what units would you propose? (Just guessing, but I would think that a "how long" unit might be seconds; and a "how far" unit might be feet.)

Perhaps "effectiveness" as I've described it does not exist?

If this is indeed the case (you've provided no definition of "effectiveness" and the levels "poor", "middling" and "good" are only degrees of the yet to be defined "effectiveness"), then you have no way to ascribe to the term "stopping power" any objective definition.

Lacking any such definition "stopping power" becomes a subjective (it means something different to everyone) and therefore meaningless term.

ETA: None of this is meant to be harsh. I'd love to be convinced that the term "stopping power" has validity and have come to this discussion with an open mind hence all the questions. However, since no definitions have been offered for the terms "stopping power" and the degrees ("poor", "middling" and "good") of its quality ("effectiveness") it is impossible to make that tremendous jump.

Skribs · Jan 4, 2012

Subjective terms aren't meaningless, or nobody would use them. They're just less easy to define. It seems like you're asking for a well thought out research paper, as opposed to a forum post here. While some level of proper writing and research is definitely preferred on a forum, I don't think that this is really the place to post it.

What we're trying to say is that it is possible to compare the calibers. I'm not trying to tell you the "right" way or go into detail on "my way", but that it is possible to get closer to the correct answer.

To be clear, I believe in "stopping" (incapacitating) a threat. What I do not believe is that an ambiguous term like "stopping power" has any real meaning or value when examined in the light of day and common sense.

It has been defined in this thread as the ability to stop a threat, and as you said we are assuming similar shot placement when making a comparison. We have also been discussing what the difference is in how a threat is stopped, which means we are working towards a more concrete definition. The problem is, we don't even agree there.

However, you are coming across (to me, at least) as if you believe that every variable has to be thoroughly defined for the general idea to even mean anything, and that anything that has the possibility of being understood differently by someone else is pointless in the discussion. Well, while I don't agree 100% with what LH is saying, I can understand him pretty well despite the fact that he is using informal prose.

Frankly, I'm happy that the four of us who are doing most of the (arguing, debating, whichever you think it is) are using decent grammar and spelling, and (for the most part) discussing the person's post instead of simply insulting the person. It's what's made this discussion fun.

481 · Jan 4, 2012

Skribs said:
Subjective terms aren't meaningless, or nobody would use them. They're just less easy to define.

Subjective terms have meanings that are specific to the user. Therefore, lacking a standardized definition, they are not directly comparable to one another.

A subjective term, may mean one thing to me and may mean something entirely different to you or to LH.

Objective terms, on the other hand (like permamnent wound cavity volume, penetration depth) all have objective defintions (cubic inches and inches respectively) that are directly comparable to one another. They have a standard. An inch to you, is an inch to me and an inch to LH. That is the difference. It is also why "stopping power" is not a valid term. It lacks a standard and it lacks a definable metric.

Skribs said:
It has been defined in this thread as the ability to stop a threat, and as you said we are assuming similar shot placement when making a comparison. We have also been discussing what the difference is in how a threat is stopped, which means we are working towards a more concrete definition. The problem is, we don't even agree there.

You have so eloquently made my point here for me, Skribs.

Once we obtain these things (a concrete definition and a standard) that you say we are working toward; guess what?

We will then have an objective term.

And yes, I agree, this has been fun.

Loosedhorse · Jan 4, 2012

You've offered no definition of "effectiveness" in your statement above

Actually, I have:

me said:
What I'm talking about (others can speak for themselves) is effectiveness; perhaps especially how long an attacker remains aggressive, or how far an animal travels, after taking "a good hit."

...(Just guessing, but I would think that a "how long" unit might be seconds; and a "how far" unit might be feet.)

Similarly, I also defined three levels of effectiveness (for hunting, anyway), although you say I didn't. Perhaps your asking for more detail? Modesty prevents!

I would suggest a consensus would be required. Or, if we could actually get some data in seconds or feet, we might find that the different loads fall naturally into 3 (or more) categories for a given target.

From personal experience and discussion, I might be inclined to say that a "good" hunting load lets a deer-sized or bigger animal travel less than 100 yards after a "good hit"--which would also have to be defined by consensus.

That's been my point all along. The term "stopping power" assumes that placement is a given or invariable

No more than "penetration" assumes that placement is a given or invariable. A bullet first encountering bone will penetrate differently than one missing bone--and one that misses entirely will have no penetration at all! See? Just like "stopping power."

I believe in "stopping" (incapacitating) a threat.

You expressly equate stopping with incapacitating; I disagree with that definition. And you seem to tacitly equate incapacitation with lethal injury; I again disagree.

I'd love to be convinced

"Convinced" is an emotional state, not a logical one; any "convincing" of you will have to be done by you. I can try to have you consider; that is all.

I don't agree 100% with what LH is saying

If you did, I'm not sure which of us would be more concerned!

discussing the person's post instead of simply insulting the person. It's what's made this discussion fun.

The weather in this thread has been particularly fair lately. Fun, indeed!

Skribs · Jan 4, 2012

481, I think we disagree on the level of detail and exactness that is needed in this thread. I think I'm simply trying to say that there is a difference and that caliber will have an affect, but at present time I can't accurately measure, so I have to guess what the difference is.

No offense to anyone in here, but I don't think this is the place where this can really be figured out. I think people like us (although with more experience than me) would need to sit down and discuss the variables, and then have a team composed of a ballistics expert, a medical expert, a physicist, and a computer modeler to work on a program that will accurately test each of these variables.

You expressly equate stopping with incapacitating; I disagree with that definition. And you seem to tacitly equate incapacitation with lethal injury; I again disagree.

I believe the only reliable method of stopping is incapacitation, which comes from preventing the CNS from properly transmitting messages to the body*. If someone is in pain, they may ignore it, fight harder, or quit. If someone cannot physically swing their arm, they can't hit you.

With a firearm, disabling the CNS generally means lethal injury. With a tazer or tranq gun (for the Chuck fans out there), it is a nonlethal injury. There are drawbacks to those systems, however (tazers have a lot of limitation, tranq gun may fail on someone with heavy tolerance to drugs).

*This can come from physical or chemical damage to the CNS, electric interference, or a lack of blood and oxygen to fuel the CNS.

481 · Jan 4, 2012

Loosedhorse said:
Similarly, I also defined three levels of effectiveness (for hunting, anyway), although you say I didn't. Perhaps your asking for more detail? Modesty prevents!

Why does modesty prevent now? Yes, details would be great. (criteria, the standard by which the criteria are rated, etc.)

You've labeled three levels of "effectiveness". You have yet to define what "effectiveness" is and what criteria are required to obtain each level.

Loosedhorse said:
I would suggest a consensus would be required.

If that is the case, then you have no definition to work from since you state that a concensus is required.

Loosedhorse said:
No more than "penetration" assumes that placement is a given or invariable. A bullet first encountering bone will penetrate differently than one missing bone--and one that misses entirely will have no penetration at all! See? Just like "stopping power. "You expressly equate stopping with incapacitating; I disagree with that definition.

Of course I do. Any handgun or rifle projectile at any reasonably attainable velocity is not going to halt my forward motion or propel me backwards several feet upon impact. Unlike "stopping power", penetration is tangible,. it has a metric and a standard. "Stopping power", on the other hand, lacks a standard and a metric- you even said that a concensus is required.

Loosedhorse said:
And you seem to tacitly equate incapacitation with lethal injury; I again disagree.

Nope. Incapacitation is the inability to commit an intentional action. Lethal or not, once someone is incapacitated they are unable to act. Incapacitation can be caused by death or a survivable severe injury (hypovolemic shock is just one example).

Loosedhorse said:
"Convinced" is an emotional state, not a logical one; any "convincing" of you will have to be done by you. I can try to have you consider; that is all.

When you type things like this it makes me wonder if you are simply being 1.) supercilious or 2.) just being silly.

Convinced is defined in The Merriam-Webster dictionary as: "being brought (as by argument) to a belief or action."

I've asked you to define the term "stopping power" and you offered the as yet undefined component of "effectiveness" without any metric or standard for it. Claiming that "levels" defined it, you offered three "levels" of "effectiveness", but never defined "effectiveness" rendering the suggested levels meaningless.

When asked again, you state that "modesty prevents". Really? Now? :scrutiny:

Given the present state of your argument, you have convinced me that you are probably just being silly for the sake of being silly and have no serious belief that you can support.

SharkHat · Jan 4, 2012

Are there existing comparisons between the calibers using hinged and/or springed silhouette targets? Something similar to the military qualification courses, where objective measurements could be taken which reflect the amount of force imparted to the target at known distances. Angular changes, distance from axis of rotation, etc.

If no known studies exist, it could be a fun experiment to run.

edit: this suggestion is not intended to imply that this would be sufficient data to definitively end this debate, only that it would be a fun experiment

481 · Jan 4, 2012

Skribs said:
481, I think we disagree on the level of detail and exactness that is needed in this thread. I think I'm simply trying to say that there is a difference and that caliber will have an affect, but at present time I can't accurately measure, so I have to guess what the difference is.

Which means that you cannot truthfully state that one round has more "stopping power" than another.

Skribs said:
No offense to anyone in here, but I don't think this is the place where this can really be figured out. I think people like us (although with more experience than me) would need to sit down and discuss the variables, and then have a team composed of a ballistics expert, a medical expert, a physicist, and a computer modeler to work on a program that will accurately test each of these variables.

Agreed. Until a standard and a metric is established, the concept of "stopping power" is at best an unproven concept whose relevance can only be guessed at by those claiming its validity.

Anyone claiming an authoritative grasp of what "stopping power" is, is just blowing smoke.

Prosser · Jan 4, 2012

DavidE: What is the round they use for .38 Super to shoot major, and how is it calculated? For me, a 2 pound plus gun, with a 100 grain bullet doesn't kick.

My point was that given a choice, the lighter bullet loads are simply the fastest back on target. I love .45's, but, I'm not going to lie and say I can be as fast, unless I figure out someway to go way down in power with the .45's, pretty much using Jerry M. type loads.

I just got done reading about a 440 grain LFN, at 1350, .500JRH this is about shooting a DEER/DOE:

"I hit her in the neck, ruined it, the bones in one shoulder, mulched the lungs, liver, stomach and half the intestines before the boolit left. What a mess to clean... It would be the same if you just catch her, unzip her, turn her inside out and use a sledge hammer...
That darn gun is a grenade!"

So, it appears that a LFN style heavy bullet is capable of damage similar to a hi-velocity rifle, but with better penetration. The above observation is not unique, and such hunting stories using big bore handguns are generally the rule, not the exception.

So what explains why a bullet 25% bigger in diameter then a .45 does such
extensive, animal long damage? Everyone tells me it doesn't transfer it's kenetic energy, since the bullets exit.

.357Sig has an excellent point:
"The point is this; people are chasing a dream with this topic. EVEN IF you could find a slight difference in effectiveness in a controlled lab, you could never reap the benefits, due to the nature of a shooting...extremely high variation. What works in one, may have no effect in another."

Another way of putting it is it is possible to have a handgun that is far more effective then the SD calibers. However, you have to be willing to jump out of the comfort zone/legal box that our legal system and our ammomakers have painted us into.

"Of course, 12 inches of penetration isn't going to stop anyone without proper shot placement. That's been my point all along. The term "stopping power" assumes that placement is a given or invariable, a fact that both you and I cannot deny. That is the flaw, the fallacy of the term "stopping power"; it assumes way too much and never offers a definition of the "power" that a projectile possesses to bring an assailant to a "stop". "

I wonder about that. Shoot a prarrie dog with a .44 185 grain HP at 1900 fps. Bullet expands and stops quickly. Problem is, the dog explodes.
Hit same dog with SD caliber and see what happens.

I think there are loads that would not penetrate well, yet are devastating
on deer size targets. I've loaded 275 grain speer HP's and some Hawks in .475 and .510. My friends won't use such loads, since they blow a 4" hole in deer, and damage a lot of meat. They don't penetrate like LFN's, but, they do kill.
Shotgun 00 buck closely resembles 12" or less of penetration, but, with nearly 500 grains of shot, it has a very real effect.

"481, I think we disagree on the level of detail and exactness that is needed in this thread. I think I'm simply trying to say that there is a difference and that caliber will have an affect, but at present time I can't accurately measure, so I have to guess what the difference is.

No offense to anyone in here, but I don't think this is the place where this can really be figured out. I think people like us (although with more experience than me) would need to sit down and discuss the variables, and then have a team composed of a ballistics expert, a medical expert, a physicist, and a computer modeler to work on a program that will accurately test each of these variables."

Skribs: the best information for this kind of stuff is hunting. We have handguns that hit like high powered rifles. If your lungs are 'mulched', you aren't going to be much of a threat. Likewise if your liver is blown up, the pain is going to stop you. If your shoulder joint and neck are blown apart,
chances are really good you aren't moving.

There is something about big bullets. Hit a deer with a .475 Linebaugh, Texas Heartshot, 420 grains, LFN, in the ham. Bullet goes end to end, exits,
hits nothing vital. Deer drops dead.

The industry has set a bunch of standards based on compromise. If you stay in the box, your limited, and discussion of the differences is like dancing on the head of a rather large pin.

What has the SD/LEO industry done?
1. First and foremost: They turned lead and copper into gold with the marketing and selling of Hollowpoint ammunition to LE0.

2. They have defined, on the lower end of the scale, penetration standards that got people killed. The FBI attempted to correct that, but, most of the HP's still penetrate near the minimum for the caliber, putting the users at risk. In doing so, it has put at risk legally, anyone that uses a non-LEO caliber for defense.

Skribs · Jan 4, 2012

481, you are still using the definition of "stopping power" as the ability to physically stop an incoming attacker. We are using it to mean (as has been clarified several times), the ability of a bullet to stop the threat. Not as in "if I hit an arm travelling this fast, will it stop?" but to prevent the attacker from continuing the attack. We haven't defined the variables that would specifically show how much "stopping power" a bullet has, but that definition should be enough for the general concept.

Part of getting down to exact variables and the exact criteria by which those variables are judged is by starting with a general concept. In your previous temperature example, how did people define degrees? They had to start with a base "it's warmer today than it was yesterday" and then figure out some way to measure the difference and assign units to explain it. However, I highly doubt the professional response to "it's warmer today than it was yesterday" was "since you have not adequately stated what 'warmer' means, with units, it is untruthful for you to say such a thing."

Prosser, hunting can give us an idea of what will happen, and hunting small game highlights the differences of the calibers better...but no animal, not even hogs, are a perfect comparison for humans. For example, most animals don't wear clothing (with certain exceptions, like a pet monkey having a diaper or a hermit crab).

David E · Jan 4, 2012

Prosser said:
DavidE: What is the round they use for .38 Super to shoot major, and how is it calculated?

There is more than one way to skin that cat, but the formula to calculate USPSA "Power Factor" is bullet weight X velocity / 1000

125 is minimum for "Minor," while "Major" requires 165 or greater. The load you listed is about 150 PF

For me, a 2 pound plus gun, with a 100 grain bullet doesn't kick.

Ok......but that alone doesn't mean you can shoot it faster than a .40 or .45

My point was that given a choice, the lighter bullet loads are simply the fastest back on target.

And my point is, with proper technique and sufficient practice, you can shoot the .45 equally well and fast.

I love .45's, but, I'm not going to lie and say I can be as fast,

Many people think this until they take a class, learn and practice the technique and prove to themselves otherwise. I doubt you'd be an exception.

Loosedhorse · Jan 4, 2012

You have yet to define what "effectiveness" is

Actually, again, I have. We apparently differ in our definition of "define" (and that can get tricky!).

As to modesty: I am happy to defer to others this task of defintion. We can suppose, 481, that if the "12-inch minimum" criterion was your personal darling for "adequate penetration" (instead of the FBI's darling), it would carry less weight. So, I am happy to wait for a precise defintion rather than attempt to supply one (which you will continue to insist is inadequate or not a defintion); and all the while I understand that the quality of "effectiveness" exists, even if it is for now imprecisely defined.

As you have pointed out, the concept of how to model projectile effectiveness has changed over time. RSP was popular for a while, then RII--even the Fuller Index had its day; now, "12 inch minimum penetration" is king. You apparently feel that, unlike its predecessors, its reign will last forever.

Me? I remain aware that the goal is not penetration, it is stopping. So I am happy to take a long term view, and await then next big theory.

The only thing that will stop the theories--including confirming or disproving the FBI's current theory of what makes an "adequate" round-- is good data; which as you point out we don't have.

no definition to work from

What "work" are you signing me up to do? I am discussing.

When you type things like this it makes me wonder

As well it should. It made me wonder when I first encountered it, too, but it is a central tenet of post-positivist scientific theory. In short: there is a difference between having reasons to believe a theory, and actually believing it--being convinced. We can talk about "evidence" and "probability", but no scientific theory is ever finally proven.

Consequently, the decision of when to "believe" a theory is a decision that the evidence is strong enough; and that decision is influenced by emotions, like whether we consider the theory "elegant," or whether our buddies believe it--and a thousand other non-logical considerations.

In short, for each indivdual, the process of becoming convinced is nonformalizable. As Martin Gardner put it succinctly, "No one is ever convinced by logic of anything important."

Skribs · Jan 4, 2012

David, I think that the same things which make people better shooters with the .45 would also increase their proficiency with the 9. However, I think if you practice the .45, you might be faster with it in comparison to what you could with the 9, simply because you're readjusting to the recoil.

It's like on Mythbusters when they tested to see if you could save gas mileage by tailgating trucks. The closer they got, the better the gas mileage, until they got too close - but it wasn't because it was a less efficient design, it was because they were feathering the throttle.

Handgun Caliber Selection Insight

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Similar threads