Stopping power of BP vs. Modern Cartridges

Status
Not open for further replies.
McCall911, I cannot argue with anything you said. Sanow might have been cherry-picking loads, trying to find something that had a similar "OSS" value to the .44 Walker RB.

Personally, the Fackler WTI approach seems more credible to me - Fackler and his associates are experienced medical professionals - and their approach is more straightforward. According to what I've read, they are only concerned about the permanent crush cavity, with the requirement that the bullet must penetrate at least 12 inches. Any penetration beyond 15 inches is considered wasted, so they only consider the volume of the permanent crush cavity out to a depth of 15 inches. A volume greater than 2.4 cubic inches (40 cubic centimeters) is judged to be a good incapacitator, even though they don't make any promises about "one shot stops".

If I'm doing the math correctly, the permanent crush cavity of the .41 Mag/175 JHP would be 4.5 cubic inches. The permanent crush cavity of the .44 Walker round ball (using 15 inches penetration) would be 3.3 cubic inches.... so the .41 Mag is superior with the Fackler approach, but the .44 Walker still rates highly.

The Marshall/Sanow "OSS" ratings seem to be heavily dependent upon the "wallop" provided by the temporary stretch cavity. That "wallop" is not 100% reliable - it may not work at all if the bad guy is zonked on PCP - but the temporary stretch cavity is still a measurable "real world" effect, and the Marshall/Sanow ratings are worthy of consideration even if they're not "gospel".
 
The trouble with Fackler et al. is that they work in a vacuum, essentially ignoring reality. Marshall/Sanow stuff is pretty far from perfect, but I'll take actual results over laboratory results any day of the week.

Of course, the argument can be made that any formula based upon the results of shooting gelatin is not reality based either, and that's a valid point. I definitely take such formulas with a grain of salt - but again, they're at least based on results of actual shootings.
 
About the one shot stop thing....I think that’s a load. Too many variables to calculate including an individuals will to fight, which can't be calculated.
Click to expand...

Except that it doesn't have to be calculated, given a large enough sample - unless the argument is that people shot with .40 S&Ws are more likely to be on PCP than are people shot with .45 ACPs, or whatever.

I'm not hoping to be seen as a fanboy of Marshall/Sanow, FWIW. I just don't see anything better, yet.
 
back around 15 yrs ago I was camped out upon a mountain top that has no building around for miles (still go there good bit to camp) and as usual had my BP revolvers a '58 Rem 'Buffalo' and a ROA both that I cast Lee mold conicals for.
shooting max loads of Pyrodex under the slugs into jack pine saplings blew through with much splintering on backside.
the same jack pines stopped .357 mag 125gr semi-jacket soft point which many say is the ideal anti personell round, a 4" S&W.
many a time I've walked that mountain at night with my black lab running and me toteing the ROA or '58 and a Bowie and felt well armed.
 
''many a time I've walked that mountain at night with my black lab running and me toteing the ROA or '58 and a Bowie and felt well armed...''
And you were well armed, indeed. I'd still rather have the Marlin Camp Carbine.
 
The trouble with Fackler et al. is that they work in a vacuum, essentially ignoring reality.
Click to expand...

I'd probably give Fackler more credit than that - battlefield surgeon, Army Medical Corps officer, honcho at the Letterman Army Research Institute.... he's got some impressive credentials, and he's been studying the effects of projectiles on the human body since before most of us were born. In contrast, Marshall/Sanow are a pair of cops who made a pile of money on two books containing un-verifiable facts, and then just faded away.

I'm not saying that the Marshall/Sanow books are worthless - I was impressed by the Marshall/Sanow books when they came out, but I have to recognize that there are some legitimate criticisms against them. I also have some doubts about Fackler's methods too. Maybe in another 100 years, the experts will have all this gelatin/mathematical stuff ironed out, but I don't think we're there yet.
 
Personally, the Fackler WTI approach seems more credible to me - Fackler and his associates are experienced medical professionals - and their approach is more straightforward. According to what I've read, they are only concerned about the permanent crush cavity, with the requirement that the bullet must penetrate at least 12 inches. Any penetration beyond 15 inches is considered wasted, so they only consider the volume of the permanent crush cavity out to a depth of 15 inches. A volume greater than 2.4 cubic inches (40 cubic centimeters) is judged to be a good incapacitator, even though they don't make any promises about "one shot stops".
Click to expand...

Careful. When we agree with Fackler too much we get labelled "Facklerites". :D

Fackler talked about what basically amounts to wound volume (in cubic inches or cm) in wounds which have a depth, as in a gunshot wound. Wound area, in square cm, might apply to surface wounds. This is borne out independently in this article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3977/is_200209/ai_n9130118/pg_2/

So I suppose "the Facklerites" make a valid point.
 
Last edited:
I'm a Hatcherite...
''General Julian Hatcher, who invented the widely quoted (and copied) theory of Relative Stopping Power...''
Click to expand...

Really, there's a lot of agreement between the General's relative stopping power and Fackler's wound volume. At least I think so.
Superficially it might appear that Hatcher's formula is junk science. What it is, is momentum, times bullet diameter squared, times a "form factor." At first glance, this isn't anything but a series of numbers multiplied together and doesn't give us any units. It doesn't quantify anything. And IMO if we're going to seriously evaluate the concept of "stopping power" we're going to have to come up with a quantity or a measurement.
But Hatcher's formula not quantifying anything is not entirely the case, as I see it.

The one factor which is important to bullet penetration is momentum. And this is the first component of Hatcher's formula, rightly so. But penetration is also one of the things that's important in Fackler's formula, because he's interested in the wound volume. The wound volume would be the square of wound diameter (approximated as the bullet diameter, squared, times a "form factor" by Hatcher) times the penetration depth (approximated by the momentum in Hatcher's formula).
So that's where the two ideas are alike IMO.
 
Last edited:
Careful. When we agree with Fackler too much we get labelled "Facklerites".
Click to expand...

I'm not ready to join the Facklerite Church yet.... I have a couple of problems with Fackler's doctrine....

First, that requirement for a minimum of 12 inches penetration seems arbitrary. I think it could be changed to 11 inches, or possibly even 10 inches. Ten inches would still be more than half-way through a large man's torso.

Second, Fackler is preaching that the temporary stretch cavity doesn't count unless it is caused by a rifle bullet flying faster than Mach 2 (in which case the stretched tissue is actually destroyed). If I had to choose between two different handgun loads which produced identical wound channels, I would choose the load which produces the largest temporary stretch cavity. That hard punch in the gut might not destroy tissue, but it could contribute to stopping the fight.
 
I'd probably give Fackler more credit than that - battlefield surgeon, Army Medical Corps officer, honcho at the Letterman Army Research Institute.... he's got some impressive credentials, and he's been studying the effects of projectiles on the human body since before most of us were born.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't mean to insult the man himself. My argument is that his approach is a "laboratory" approach, essentially discounting reality on the street. As someone who has shot game animals with hardball in the .45 ACP, I discard any formula holding that cartridge/bullet out as an effective manstopper. Fackler's numbers say it's great (one reason for his popularity in certain quarters, I'm sure) but reality disagrees.
In contrast, Marshall/Sanow are a pair of cops who made a pile of money on two books containing un-verifiable facts, and then just faded away.
Click to expand...

Well, that's one way of putting it. Another way is "Marshall/Sanow are a pair of men with access to information few other people have: extensive records of actual shootings. Sharing the results of those shootings has revolutionized the way we think of fighting handguns." And again, I do understand and agree with some of the criticisms of their work - but again, their work seems to be the only work that's based in actual reality. That means far more to me than does any amount of laboratory-derived formulas.

And what a strange thread for a blackpowder forum!
 
And what a strange thread for a blackpowder forum!
Click to expand...

I apologize for the thread drift.... I also apologize to Marshall/Sanow, I don't mean to insult them. I keep hoping that somebody will pick up where they left off, publishing a similar study in a more academic manner, complete with verifiable data. Who knows, such a study might confirm everything that Marshall/Sanow claimed.

PS - The Facklerites don't really think the .45 hardball is such a great load. In his book, Bullet Penetration, MacPherson states that the permanent wound channel volume from a .45 FMJ is only around 1.6 cubic inches (27 cubic centimeters). Not great at all.
 
Yeah, it's drifted a bit and I suppose I was one of the "drifters." Sorry.
I need to start my own thread about stopping power in general. We'll see what we can come up with, even if it's wrong. :D
 
Heh heh. I also think the BP forum needs a thread about how to mount flashlights and lasers to flintlocks.

FWIW, the only thing I'm sure of is that a .44 caliber roundball at anything above throwing speed is going to absolutely wreck the plans of anyone who gets hit with it. And the same, of course, goes for a .41 caliber SWC. Anything beyond that is angels on pinheads, as far as I'm concerned!
 
Heh heh. I also think the BP forum needs a thread about how to mount flashlights and lasers to flintlocks.
Click to expand...

Hehehe. :D
BP goes tacticool! :cool:

I'd like to see penetration tests of these rounds at the Linebaugh seminar. There they use soaked newspapers, which is a more stringent medium than ballistic gelatin. It's still not living tissue, no, but it's generally tougher.
Besides as they say over at theboxotruth.com, shooting stuff is fun! :D
 
I laugh my fool butt off everytime I read one of these threads.Cap and ball sixguns have probably killed more folks than all the other handguns made throughout history combined.And we're still wondering how effective they are. Hilarious.
Click to expand...

+1000

It's not the bullet it's were you put it.
 
Suffice it to say that if somebody pointed a black powder percussion revolver at me, I'd certainly do what they tell me and not consider it in a different light than, say, a 9mm. It would get my attention to say the least.

So why aren't he "bad guys" using these? One could order a percussion revolver on line without a background check, and with very little training, load up 6 balls and head on down to the local bodega and wreak havoc, yes? But it doesn't happen, at least not to my knowledge. This has always been a source of wonderment to me.
 
SleazyRider said:
Suffice it to say that if somebody pointed a black powder percussion revolver at me, I'd certainly do what they tell me and not consider it in a different light than, say, a 9mm. It would get my attention to say the least.

So why aren't he "bad guys" using these? One could order a percussion revolver on line without a background check, and with very little training, load up 6 balls and head on down to the local bodega and wreak havoc, yes? But it doesn't happen, at least not to my knowledge. This has always been a source of wonderment to me.
Click to expand...
Some are I have heard mention of a couple of felons/ex carrying BP but maybee it has something to do with reliability?

It took me a lot of practice and working with loads and lube to feel confident it would fire every time and initially I had 1 miss fire or jam in
almost every cylindar.

OR maybee it just dont sit right trying to shoot a BP on its side gangsta style LOL


excelent article corsair
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
BP in modern rifles
Replies
10
Views
1K
wildeboer
W
B
  • Locked
Stopping power of a New Army vs modern revolver?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
14K
DrLaw
D
T
  • Locked
Are You In The Historically-Accurate Camp Or Modern Practical?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
4K
Quentin
Q
ClemBert
  • Locked
4th of July Black Powder Noisemaker Cartridge Blanks
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Eb1
Eb1
S
  • Locked
If you've got the time ...
Replies
9
Views
648
mykeal
M
Back
Top