Loosedhorse
member
Sure there is. As quoted above, even Col. Cooper believed in one-shot stops; and thought 10mm could do it out to 50 yards. Reliably.
10mm vs 45 ACP which has more stopping power.
- Thread starter MUSICALGUNNUT45
- Start date
- Status
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
Small children also "believe" in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth-fairy, but that doesn't mean that those entities exist either. Because of its reliance upon a faulty premise, your argument fails to stand on its own.
Kinetic energy is not "stopping power", kinetic energy is kinetic energy. Momentum is not "stopping power", momentum is momentum. One shot stop percentages are not "stopping power", percentages are percentages.
"Stopping power" is nothing more than a mystical concept used by those to describe something that they don't understand.
Last edited:
MachIVshooter
Member
Huh.
That's kind of like "should I buy a Ford F-150 or a Nissan Titan" being answered with "Mahindra TR40"
The .357 Sig is inferior to both rounds. Smaller bullet making less energy (yes, I'm going with .45 +P numbers, since the .357 Sig is maxxed out, pressure-wise)
Besides-there's what, like, three makers chambering it these days (Sig, Glock, S&W)? Makes the 10mm look popular by comparison.
NMGonzo
Member
You have to do your part for the "stopping" to happen.
None of them will stop anything if you miss your target.
At the typical self defense distances, something from 9mm up will do.
None of them will stop anything if you miss your target.
At the typical self defense distances, something from 9mm up will do.
481, I think this has turned into a semantic argument. I don't see Loosedhorse (or anyone else) arguing that any of the handgun rounds has the capacity to knock a grown man off his feet from the force of impact, nor to instantly and reliably incapacitate on a non-CNS hit. That seems to be what you are "hearing," though, when you read "stopping power." "Stopping power" is being used to mean something different: the propensity/probability of a round from the caliber under discussion to lead to a fairly immediate cessation of purposeful and aggressive action by the target. I.e., the chance that a hit will cause the target to "stop" doing the thing that made him a target to begin with.
Is that a fuzzy definition? Sure. It's not a physics term, and it's not supposed to be a physics term. It's about how certain physical properties of a round are likely, in the aggregate and over many iterations, to interact with human behavior. For example, while everyone here acknowledges that a .44 special bullet lacks the momentum to knock down a man-sized target, and that it lacks the kinetic energy to physically rip/blow a human being to pieces, it nevertheless has a better chance of stopping a target from returning fire than a .22lr. Neither round is a death ray, and neither is a love tap on the butt. But the chances of one stopping a target are not the same as the chances for the other. Likewise, within a given caliber, there could be meaningful differences in stopping power based on bullet type (FMJ v modern JHP) or loadings (+p versus de-loaded target rounds).
Unfortunately, because of the state of terminal ballistics knowledge (a relative ignorance compounded by the fact that different outcomes often result from the same apparent inputs), a debate over the stopping power of 10mm versus .45 is probably incapable of definitive resolution unless and until we have a few hundred volunteers eager to be subjected to controlled shootings with both!
Is that a fuzzy definition? Sure. It's not a physics term, and it's not supposed to be a physics term. It's about how certain physical properties of a round are likely, in the aggregate and over many iterations, to interact with human behavior. For example, while everyone here acknowledges that a .44 special bullet lacks the momentum to knock down a man-sized target, and that it lacks the kinetic energy to physically rip/blow a human being to pieces, it nevertheless has a better chance of stopping a target from returning fire than a .22lr. Neither round is a death ray, and neither is a love tap on the butt. But the chances of one stopping a target are not the same as the chances for the other. Likewise, within a given caliber, there could be meaningful differences in stopping power based on bullet type (FMJ v modern JHP) or loadings (+p versus de-loaded target rounds).
Unfortunately, because of the state of terminal ballistics knowledge (a relative ignorance compounded by the fact that different outcomes often result from the same apparent inputs), a debate over the stopping power of 10mm versus .45 is probably incapable of definitive resolution unless and until we have a few hundred volunteers eager to be subjected to controlled shootings with both!
Magnumite
Member
Power is energy. Energy is the ability to do work. The 10mm generates more energy so it has more power. It is not effectiveness on the target, recoil, fast followup shots, sectional density, nor anything else. It is power. Bullets were made to stop animate targets. So a cartidges energy and momentum values are stopping power.
Stopping power as the term is typically used refers to a round's ability to incapacitate a living 'target' in an effective manner. As indicated impact velocity and energy, bullet construction, sectional density , etc enter into the stopping effectiveness picture.
After all that is taken care of, the target becomes bigger (from man to a grizzy bear ) and the stopping power recipe changes. Its relative.
An earlier poster said it right. 'Another cartridge war thread'.
Stopping power as the term is typically used refers to a round's ability to incapacitate a living 'target' in an effective manner. As indicated impact velocity and energy, bullet construction, sectional density , etc enter into the stopping effectiveness picture.
After all that is taken care of, the target becomes bigger (from man to a grizzy bear ) and the stopping power recipe changes. Its relative.
An earlier poster said it right. 'Another cartridge war thread'.
R.W.Dale
Member
Actually 357 sig is more powerful than +p 45
Most +p 45 loads are stuck in that 490 to 520 ft lbs range even resorting to double taps exotic 160g tac-x only gets you to 584 ft lbs.
My mundane ranger carry load does 520ft lbs matching and beating all conventional. 45 acp loads. But if you compare apples to apples double taps 115 357 sig load makes 614 ft lbs of energy
As to what guns you can get the sig round in. I believe its the third most issued police round in the us. It recently beat out 38special in a thr most carried poll and as long as you can get a sig or a glock chambered for it WHO CARES
posted via tapatalk using android.
oldfool
Member
McG #67
"Bambi doesn't run THAT far with a lung shot from a .357 magnum revolver, roughly 10mm equivalent in energy."
agreed
(but bambi doesn't shoot back either,instead of running, nor does mr. piggie, depending on how-big-your-pig of course.. shooting back is the #1 reason why terms like "stopping power" get tossed around gun forums)
part of the problem being that "one-shot-stop" is somehow translated by too many people as one-shot-instant-kill... which can happen with any caliber, but happens not often with any handgun caliber, and not often enough even with suitable centerfire rifle calibers... "one on one" gunfights most often have a tendency to transpire in a matter of very few seconds, not minutes, and they are called gunfights because eveybody can shoot, whether or not everybody can hit
PS
my for walking in the woods gun is a 357, too
unless I am carrying a 30-30
power enough for me, 'stopping power' maybe, maybe not
depends on where the shot goes
ask bambi
"Bambi doesn't run THAT far with a lung shot from a .357 magnum revolver, roughly 10mm equivalent in energy."
agreed
(but bambi doesn't shoot back either,instead of running, nor does mr. piggie, depending on how-big-your-pig of course.. shooting back is the #1 reason why terms like "stopping power" get tossed around gun forums)
part of the problem being that "one-shot-stop" is somehow translated by too many people as one-shot-instant-kill... which can happen with any caliber, but happens not often with any handgun caliber, and not often enough even with suitable centerfire rifle calibers... "one on one" gunfights most often have a tendency to transpire in a matter of very few seconds, not minutes, and they are called gunfights because eveybody can shoot, whether or not everybody can hit
PS
my for walking in the woods gun is a 357, too
unless I am carrying a 30-30
power enough for me, 'stopping power' maybe, maybe not
depends on where the shot goes
ask bambi
Last edited:
sc1911cwp
Member
I've seen this before and I have to say I like it. I used to shoot 10mm in a Original S&W 610 6" until I sold it. BAD MOVE. A great cartridge. Greater if you reload. I've been in healthcare for 36 years. I can tell you, and give you great references:
1. dead is dead.
2. all bleeding eventually stops
3. small calibers don't expand enough
4. large calibers never shrink
1. dead is dead.
2. all bleeding eventually stops
3. small calibers don't expand enough
4. large calibers never shrink
wristtwister
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 419
I like the energy dump I get with my 10MM, and I like having 13 rounds in my Para P-12 .45, so I don't have a problem with either one of them... The 10MM shows up massivly in ballistic gel, and the other players all have "smaller footprints" in "energy dump", so if I was shooting for the "kill shot", I'd prefer the 10MM. If I was carrying "for self defense", the .45 gives me more rounds, so I'd go there.
Apparantly, "gun guys" can't have more than one answer to questions... it has to be that their particular choice is the only one. I've got all kinds of guns and all kinds of caliber choices, and they each have some things they're better suited to do than others... If you want an energy dump, my .300 Win Mag will give you a dose, along with most of my other rifles, but it's idiotic to try to turn any one caliber into the "do all" round. Bigger doesn't necessarily make it better, otherwise, we'd all be using shotgun slug pistols and arguing over which gauge was best.
I don't squirrel hunt with my .44 magnum, and I don't bear hunt with a .22LR... I pick what works for it's purpose and let the "academic studies" hang out with the internet ninjas that hardly ever pull the trigger and seem fixated on having one "do all" cartridge that solves every problem in shooting.
WT
Apparantly, "gun guys" can't have more than one answer to questions... it has to be that their particular choice is the only one. I've got all kinds of guns and all kinds of caliber choices, and they each have some things they're better suited to do than others... If you want an energy dump, my .300 Win Mag will give you a dose, along with most of my other rifles, but it's idiotic to try to turn any one caliber into the "do all" round. Bigger doesn't necessarily make it better, otherwise, we'd all be using shotgun slug pistols and arguing over which gauge was best.
I don't squirrel hunt with my .44 magnum, and I don't bear hunt with a .22LR... I pick what works for it's purpose and let the "academic studies" hang out with the internet ninjas that hardly ever pull the trigger and seem fixated on having one "do all" cartridge that solves every problem in shooting.
WT
MCgunner
Member
Even if a deer could talk, he ain't sayin' nuthin' after I shoot him dead.
I've hunted with rifles, I've hunted with handguns. Lately, I'm in this 50 caliber 385 grain Mine ball kick. Perhaps overkill, but the smoke and boom are cool.
Get the one you can afford and comfortable shooting and can hit the target . Thats all that matters in a gunfight. In fact, the Spetnaz Special Forces , Russian Army, still use the lowly makarov bec its easy to conceal, bring to bear and hit the target at close range. A hit to the chest and head is what counts. Remember a smaller gun is easy to aim and hit the target.
coyotehitman
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 558
So, because you cannot handle the Big Ten it is inferior. Where is the logic in this?
Jeff Cooper was very opinionated and shared his opinions frequently. Don't confuse opinion with fact, though. I can talk smack and share opinion all day long, doesn't make me an authority, but I might gain a few cult members to drink my Koolaid
Redneck1911.45
Member
To say"There is no stopping power" is to say "there is no knock down factor..."
R.W.Dale
Member
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
Hi Dave,
While not perfect, your grasp of my position is pretty close to what it is. The distinction that I am debating is definitely one of semantics, you are right there, however, I am not taking the use of the loose application of the term as having the capacity to knock a grown man off of his feet from the force of a projectile's impact.
Even if we could load a 10mm 200 grain JHP to 1500 fps and have it expand and remain within the body of a 175 pound assailant (making it a perfectly inelastic collision, mv = mv, where all of the bullet's momentum is given to the assailant's body), the resultant rearward velocity of the assailant is only 2.75 inches. No one is getting knocked down or thrown backwards through the nearest plate glass window by that effect.
Rather, I am addressing the fact that the term is a colloquial one whose definition relies upon the criteria set by each particular person using it. The term itself has no accepted standard or unit of measure and definitions, when they are offered, vary with the person suggesting it and oftentimes ignores the importance of proper shot placement. Some folks use KE, others momentum (mass times velocity), power (work done per unit time) or percentages (relying upon variable criteria and collected from prior events). None of these phenomena constitute "stopping power" and as a result any debate where different parties argue the supposed effect each using their own definition is doomed to go nowhere or prove anything.
Is there such a thing a thing as "stopping power"?
If there is, it is certainly not expressed as a function of any single terminal ballistic performance dimension or percentage, but rather a highly complex set of inter-related parameters including where the projectile strikes and what it destroys.
For these reasons, it is pointless to debate the alleged effect using such simple criteria.
Last edited:
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
Since you've demonstrated clearly that you missed the point of the post that you quoted, it is not possible to take you seriously.
If you had a point it would be easier to understand. But your position is there is no point in discussing which round has the greater potential for damage. Because you don't understand that the term "stopping power" as is being used here would be discussing the relative potential ability of a round to do enough damage to cause a threat to stop being a threat. Clearly this doesn't involve the momentum or energy to throww the threat thru a window or even knock them down, slump to the floor in pain will work fine for this discussion.
So save Newton's theorys for explaining why bullets don't really throw BGs over cars for another time. This isn't the place. The OP wants to know which round has the greater potential for damage there by has the greater potential for faster incapasitation.
Now do you have anything to add to that discussion?
Loosedhorse
member
True...because you're not Jeff Cooper.
I didn't say small children believed in one-shot stops. I said Cooper did.
You got it. Standard strawman tactic. Define (for example) "knock-down power" as the ability of a round to blow an attacker backward 30 ft (through a stained-glass window!), and now you can proclaim that there's no such thing as knock-down power.
Except of course no one claimed that's what knock-down power meant.
Last edited:
In this context, "stopping power" just means "most effective." Now, "most effective" is subject to all the same criticisms you lay at the feet of "stopping power" - no accepted standard, no unit of measurement, complex and multi-variable, situationally-dependent, etc. Does that mean a discussion over which handgun round is "most effective" is pointless? Most of the problem-solving that humans spend time on involves ultimate questions posing just these same challenges. What car should I buy? Should I propose to my girlfriend? Should me wife and I have zero, one, two, or three children? Should I take out loans to pay for my child to go to Harvard? Should my business spend more on R&D or on quality assurance? How long should America stay in Afghanistan?
It just doesn't work to say that questions that are not, at present, susceptible to a quantifiable measurement, are "pointless." Substantially all of the major decisions in life, in business, in politics, are too complex to be solved by recourse to a single, objective measurement. Those questions are precisely the ones that are not "pointless" to discuss. To the contrary, it is "pointless" to discuss whether this round or that round has more kinetic energy at the muzzle, because we can just look it up in a chart.
The fact that there is no single, empirically-valid measure of a complex, ultimate question like "stopping power" does not mean that all discussion on the topic is rank speculation. The things that are empirically measureable are pieces of evidence; the primary challenge for those is whether they are measuring meaningful things that correlate with the ultimate question, and to what degree. The things that are collections/aggregations of data (surveys and the like) are pieces of evidence; the primary question there is what other factors may have skewed the data, and to what degree. The annecdotes are evidence; the question is what weight to give them or discount them as aberational, and how ready we are to believe that they are truthful. The physiology/forensic anatomy information is evidence; the questions there are whom to believe (or, rather, whose methodology to believe - it ain't personal), and how reliably any particular described phenomenon will occur/be induced.
Do I have any expectation that this thread will "solve" the question? No, no more than I expect a thread on a political forum would be able to "solve" the optimal marginal tax rate. But information will be presented, and (just as importantly) ways of looking at the information will be offered. Participants and readers may well learn something they didn't already know, and might even change their minds. As long as nobody gets irrational or treats this stuff as a matter of religious dogma, then there's certainly no harm in the discussion, and no dissappointment for those who weren't expecting a final answer.
Alpha Wolf
Member
I saw this thread going down hill when I read the title.
The trouble is "Stopping Power" is a non-specific term. Like Knock Down.
We can measure energy in a bullet at a certain range, but along with energy, transfer and penetration need to be factored in how effective a bullet is on a certain target.
Here is where it gets fuzzy. Depending range and what the target is or where you hit the target the amount of penetration and energy transferred will vary. Then there is the type of bullet used ie hollow point vs FMJ etc.. +P or standard or light loads.
Within 25yards they should both work. As long as you hit what you aim at. I would spend more time practicing with the ammo of your choice than arguing whose ammo of choice is better...
My only gripe with 10mm is cost and lack of available ammo sources for that round.
The trouble is "Stopping Power" is a non-specific term. Like Knock Down.
We can measure energy in a bullet at a certain range, but along with energy, transfer and penetration need to be factored in how effective a bullet is on a certain target.
Here is where it gets fuzzy. Depending range and what the target is or where you hit the target the amount of penetration and energy transferred will vary. Then there is the type of bullet used ie hollow point vs FMJ etc.. +P or standard or light loads.
Within 25yards they should both work. As long as you hit what you aim at. I would spend more time practicing with the ammo of your choice than arguing whose ammo of choice is better...
My only gripe with 10mm is cost and lack of available ammo sources for that round.
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
It is still not possible take you seriously.
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
Neither did I. Your persistently obtuse behavior makes it difficult to believe it is an act, but I can dumb it down for you if need be.
Simply, your argument failed because you presented as factual support for your claim the unproven assertion of another.
At least you remmebered that correctly.
You prove by such rhetoric that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you failed to understand the point being made. Thanks for making it unnecessary for me to have to use an example to prove that. Those seem to cause you great difficulty.
MCgunner
Member
Don't question the superiority of the .45ACP. It will always turn into a pissing match.
- Status
