An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

[tipoc]

From Loosed Horse;

Each event is an anecdote; compile enough events and you have data...and you can do statistics on that.

Not to split hairs but an anecdote is not data. An anecdote is a story about some event that is usually told for illustrative purposes and may or may not be factually accurate in it's details. The anecdote is the story someone tells you to illustrate their point. Anecdotal evidence is usually second hand. You cannot compile statistics from it in any real way that is meaningful. Anecdotal evidence can be useful though.

If a fella is fixin to go hunt hogs for the first time and and asks the opinion of half a dozen experienced hog hunters on bullet selection and guns and the terrain they will be hunting in, etc. and uses that experience and those stories (anecdotes) to decide to try a certain caliber, well that is a good use of the anecdotes and experience of the hunters.

But if the same fella says that based on his "studies" a 200 pound hog will fall 92% of the time within 10 feet of being hit with a 240 gr. Barnes Triple Shok fired from a 6.5" barreled Ruger Redhawk within 50 yards "with proper shot placement", well then his use of the info he got from the hunters is off and he has tried to use anecdotal information as if it was hard data.

Like I said anecdotal info can be a help, a big help. But it is what it is and cannot be used in a statistical fashion. But then you don't need that statistical info as much as some think. Hard data is what we receive from gelatin and barrier penetration tests, from morgue data, combat surgeons reports, ballistics tables, etc.

This is an important difference which Ellifritz seems not to get. I can listen to his opinion as his opinion, another hunters opinion so to speak. But I do get hinckey on him when he claims to have hard statistical evidence of something or the other. This is because he doesn't understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and hard data and confuses one with the other.

tipoc

 

[easyg]

The ability of a handgun round to stop someone independent of shot placement and other variables that cannot be predicted is very simple math involving only two factors: Penetration depth and wound diameter.

I'm not so sure about that...

I believe that the energy of the round does make a difference.
After all, a boxer, using only his fists, can kill a man.
And getting hit by a golf ball off the drive can also kill a person.
But neither the boxer nor the golf ball create a wound channel or penetrate the target.

It seems to me that, regardless of the bullet weight and/or bullet diameter, the rounds with the most energy are the more effective rounds.

With equal penetration, which is more effective, a 200g .45ACP or a 125g .357 magnum?
Both are very effective because both deliver plenty of energy to the target.

 

[Loosedhorse]

a through hole is better than a not-through hole

And your conclusion is based on...

Not to split hairs but an anecdote is not data.

Actually, you're right: an anecdote is "not data"; however it contains many data: there were three bears; there was a girl with blond hair; there were three porridge bowls, one empty. Because this data is about a faerie tale, we cannot conclude anything about real-life shootings from it; but we could use it to begin a database about faerie tales.

The anecdotes under discussion are real shootings. Ellifritz (and M&S) compiled them and extracted a subset of the data they contained, most importantly: did the attacker end his attack after being shot?

I do not understand your statement that somehow the act of compiling and looking at such data is tantamount to declaring it perfect. Nor do I understand the idea that we must only look at perfect data, since we will never see that on this subject. What we can do is look cautiously at data we know to be imperfect; the alternative is to ignore the data, in essence to pretend that the data doesn't exist.

You are free to suppose that there is nothing to be gained from looking at the data from 100s of shootings; or even that we are actually "smarter" if we just ignore them because such studies (like the words of Satan) are there simply to lead us astray.

 

[tipoc]

What we can do is look cautiously at data we know to be imperfect; the alternative is to ignore the data, in essence to pretend that the data doesn't exist.

Which is what I proposed that we do with the information contained in both M&Ss writing and that of Ellifritz that is, approach it cautiously and understand it for what it is. Meaning anecdotal evidence and not scientific.

We do not know that Ellifritz presents us with any real data or even with real stories. He makes no effort to supply us with any of that. He says that based on his "studies", and then provides no detailed information on those. So we are right to approach all his information cautiously as you and I both say we do, and take the information as a suggestion or his opinion. I may try what Ellifritz suggests based on what he says and my experience and preferences. But it seems that when Ellifritz (or M&S) says that something will work or has worked 79% of the time that you believe him and believe in that 79%. While I don't see where he has evidence for the certainty of that precise figure (particularly with Ellifritz) since he has not given us any, you do seem to approve of his certainity and defend it and the method. This reveals a misunderstanding of the difference between hard data and anecdote.

As I have said before, the collection of anecdotal evidence can be very useful if done consistently and with standards. Neither M&S nor Ellifritz, particularly the latter, have shown that they did that and so I can't take their statistical information seriously and neither should anyone else.

Heck in the case of Ellifritz all one has to do is read through it, set aside the statistics, and see it's shot full of holes.

tipoc

 

[Loosedhorse]

Meaning anecdotal evidence and not scientific.

Perhaps then we're only disagreeing about the definitions of the words "data" and "scientific." As I said, I believe data can be gathered from anecdotes, and that gathering and the data's analysis can be done in a scientific way, which would include an assessment of the limitations of the data and the gathering process, and how those limitations affect the reliability of any conclusions.

Historical data is different than experimental data--just ask John Lott!--but that does not make it "unscientific." Historical data can still be approached scientifically.

 

[tipoc]

Perhaps then we're only disagreeing about the definitions of the words "data" and "scientific." As I said, I believe data can be gathered from anecdotes, and that gathering and the data's analysis can be done in a scientific way, which would include an assessment of the limitations of the data and the gathering process, and how those limitations affect the reliability of any conclusions.

Yes this is what I said above. Anecdotal evidence can be used in a scientific manner and gathered as data. That data can then be mined for hard facts and whatever other information is available. But anecdotal evidence in and of itself is useful only in so far as we know how it was collected and if it was collected in a rigorous manner. If it was not or we are not told how it was collected then the information presented to us may be of limited or of no value.

Ellifritz tells us that a good deal of the data he presents to us is of limited usefulness. We know that anyway though. Look at the first four calibers he gives us statistics for:

the 25acp, the .32 (both .32 Long and .32acp), the .22 (short, long and long rifle) and the .380 acp.

What we can notice right off is that no distinction is made between bullet types. We know that bullet type can make a significant difference on terminal effectiveness so it's ommision here limits the usefulness of the study some. Second we see that with the .32 we have the common .32 acp lumped together with the old and seldom seen .32 Long (which version of the long is not mentioned or maybe all versions are lumped together here, revolver rounds most are). So this again limits the usefulness of the info. Next we see that the .22 short, long and l.r. are also lumped together. These are three very different rounds of .22. No distinction is made in the number of shootings with the .22 of who was shot with what. So the actual usefulness of the statistical information he presents begins to recede. For some calibers Ellifritz pretty much says it is entirely useless as the sample is too small to have meaning or that he has no way of knowing the caliber or the bullet type.

He is at least honest. He makes a mistake though in presenting it in the way he does I think. He presents the information almost in a ranking and as hard statistics. This format has been misleading to many readers. If, as Ellifritz admits the information has very limited statistical usefulness, than why present it as if it does?

As you said earlier, we learn from the story that there are three bears and a blonde. I can learn from the story to watch out for blondes breaking into my house to eat my food but I can't know if she's packing at least not from the info provided in the story.

tipoc

 

[waidmann]

I believe the original quote was,"Shot placement is king, penetration is queen and all else is angels dancing on the head of a pin."

Just like the Blue Book never bought a gun, a statistic never shot anyone. People are not populations, but groups of them are.

The author rightly identifies his work as alternate. He adds to the discussion. Allow him his say.

("There are lies, damned lies and statistics" -Mark Twain)

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

I find the stats for the 32acp interesting. Compared to the other 'mouse gun' cartridges':

* Highest accuracy %
* Highest % of people stopped with one shot
* LOWEST % of lethal wounds.

That is a lot to chew on.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I'm not so sure about that...

I believe that the energy of the round does make a difference.

Energy does matter. There has to be enough to drive the bullet. A larger bullet will require more kinetic energy to be driven to the same depth as a smaller one. Beyond full expansion and through penetration, however, additional energy is not useful. A .454 Casull that drives a .8" expanded bullet completely through a man is no more effective than a .45 ACP that drives the same .8" diameter bullet all the way through. Neither achieves enough velocity to create injury beyond actual bullet contact, so you have a wound that is equal in diameter and depth, even though the .454 exceeds the .45 ACP's energy by more than 1,000 ft/lbs.

After all, a boxer, using only his fists, can kill a man.
And getting hit by a golf ball off the drive can also kill a person.
But neither the boxer nor the golf ball create a wound channel or penetrate the target.

Blunt trauma is a very different type of injury.

It seems to me that, regardless of the bullet weight and/or bullet diameter, the rounds with the most energy are the more effective rounds.

It seems that you have a lot of learning to do regarding terminal ballistics.

With equal penetration, which is more effective, a 200g .45ACP or a 125g .357 magnum?
Both are very effective because both deliver plenty of energy to the target.

With equal penetration depth, the one that creates a larger wound channel is more effective. Again, it's not about "delivering energy"; Energy transfer is a big fat myth. It's about creating a wound channel and, once more, energy is only important up to the point that the bullet acheives full expansion and desired penetration.

Splitting hairs over the effectiveness of various service calibers is mostly academic, though. In the real world, the difference in actual effectiveness of a .357 and a .45 ACP is pretty negligeable, just as it is with those two vs. a good 9x19 load, .38 Super, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, 10mm, etc. All of these rounds can drive an expanded HP plenty deep on a normal sized human being. Enter larger-than-normal men, and some of the more powerful cartridges have an advantage; There are certainly plenty of people out there in which 12" would not be adequate.

I have a number of carry guns in .380, 9x19, 10mm, .44 Spl. and .45 ACP. Incidentally, the .380 is the most frequently carried, even though I know its less effective than the others, because it's the one that can always be there, irrespective of wardrobe.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I believe that the energy of the round does make a difference.

I believe that, too. However, it must be recognized that "shock wave" is not as dependable as penetration of a vital structure; some boxers have "glass jaws," and others don't.

Blunt trauma is a very different type of injury.

Than penetration? Sure. But that doesn't mean that blunt trauma can't stop fights (look at bean-bag rounds), or that the part of bullet energy that is deposited as shock wave has no similarity to a blunt-force shock wave.

the rounds with the most energy are the more effective rounds.

That's superficially true; certainly, I'd rather hit an attacker with a .223 HP than a .38 Special 158 gr HP. But the 5.7 pistol round hasn't changed the world, and I do in fact carry 158 gr LSWCHPs in my .38, because it is not clear that ligher loads work better, or even as well. (But the +P version of this load does seem better than the non+P.)

It's about creating a wound channel and, once more, energy is only important up to the point that the bullet acheives full expansion and desired penetration.

This statement would mean that a slow-poke, underloaded .45 ACP FMJ that just makes 12 inches penetration should be just as effective--and just as quicky effective--as a full-house .357 JHP that expands quickly to .45 and also stops at 12 inches. Given the same wound track, whether through non-vital or vital thoracic structures.

Some will believe that's obviously true, and others that it's obviously false.

 

[MachIVshooter]

This statement would mean that a slow-poke, underloaded .45 ACP FMJ that just makes 12 inches penetration should be just as effective--and just as quicky effective--as a full-house .357 JHP that expands quickly to .45 and also stops at 12 inches. Given the same wound track, whether through non-vital or vital thoracic structures.

Some will believe that's obviously true, and others that it's obviously false.

The FMJ wouldn't, but a wadcutter would. Why? The expanded .357 bullet at .45" diameter will cut and tear tissue, where a round nose .45" will push most of it aside. But a wadcutter will have that wide, flat nose that can impart the kind of damage an opened HP will as it passes through flesh.

Again, because we're talking about handgun rounds, we're talking about velocities below the threshold of massive cavitation and permanent crush cavities beyond the bullet's path, so direct contact between bullet and tissue is the only wounding mechanism (See Dr. Martin Fackler's research, for starters)

I have never said that bullet type doesn't play a role in effectiveness. Of course it does. I also never made the statement that a RN or FMJ is just as effective as a smaller bullet that expanded to .45". Those are words you tried to put in my mouth.

I said biggest bullet, Should have said biggest wound channel and deepest hole. None the less, that's semantics and my point remains. Also, that sentence in context was: "You want the most effective cartridge? It's the one that drives the biggest bullet the deepest. Start with a larger diameter, use a good expanding bullet.....", so one can reasonably deduce that I'm not talking about FMJ in any respect without my having to be explicit.

But that doesn't mean that blunt trauma can't stop fights (look at bean-bag rounds), or that the part of bullet energy that is deposited as shock wave has no similarity to a blunt-force shock wave.

Ballistic shockwaves, while real, amount to very little at handgun velocities. If they did, merely acheiving a COM hit would do, regardless of what the bullet actually destroys. Yet people have bullets pass by or even graze vital organs without causing them to fail. At most, you end up with bruising in close proximity to the wound, which is caused by temporary cavitation stretching capillaries in the tissue beyond their limits, but the tisue itself has enough elasticity to return to it's normal state. Beyond the temporary cavity, you see no damage. We're not made of glass; impact at one end of our structure does not cause damage at the other. We absorb and diffuse it, with damage proportionate to the size and force of the impact.

Even at rifle velocites, the effect of the shockwave (cavitation) tends to be confied to the structure it is within; Just because a .30-06 may create a 4" permanent crush cavity does not mean that passing within 2" of an organ will damage it. It may move that organ, it may even bruise it, but the tearing effect of the cavity will cease where the tissue being stretched does. Like I said, our bodies aren't a brittle homogenous structure.

I also never said that blunt trauma wasn't an effective fight stopper. Of course it is. A full force blow to the head with a baseball bat would stop a fight more reliably and decisively than a bullet. But it's a lot more difficult to carry and infinitely more challenging to employ in the defensive role.

As for comparing bullets to a boxer's punch that was the reason for my statement that you've replied to? Not a good comparison. While the initial impact energy of the bullet may be higher, the energy is being used to penetrate. In the case of body armor, a bullet's application of kinetic energy applied stops at impact, where a punch is being pushed through by the body behind it continuing to apply force after initial impact. A fist and arm is also much heavier than a bullet, so momentum alone without the continued driving force will cause more motion on the object or person being punched.

 

[Loosedhorse]

a bullet's application of kinetic energy applied stops at impact

There are many odd statements in your last post (like the unneeded information that "We're not made of glass"--thanks! ), but this is the oddest, so I'll focus on it.

No. The bullet exerts hydrostatic force on the tissue at surface impact and throughout its passage through the tissue. We know, for example, that there is friction at the bullet-tissue interface; that the maximum temporary cavitation does not occur until after the bullet passes; and that the maximum diameter is often well away from the wound entrance. Not sure how that can happen if all hydrostatic force is transfered on impact.

You seem to be arguing that a fist's force somehow travels farther into the target that a bullet's, even though the bullet penetrates.

Those are words you tried to put in my mouth.

I "tried" nothing of the kind. You've just chosen to interpret my words as having dishonest intent, in red-letter high dudgeon? Fine. Here:

This statement would mean that a slow-poke, underloaded .45 ACP WADCUTTER that just makes 12 inches penetration should be just as effective--and just as quicky effective--as a full-house .357 JHP that expands quickly to .45 and also stops at 12 inches. Given the same wound track, whether through non-vital or vital thoracic structures.

Some will believe that's obviously true, and others that it's obviously false

I trust that this change, which I am happy to make, will make your mouth feel less full. To me, my amended statement makes the same point as before, despite your bluster. And, by the way, those WC bullets you like are also better at producing temporary cavitation than conical bullets, so any increased incapacitating effect could in theory be due to the increased crush cavity or the increased temporary cavity.

direct contact between bullet and tissue is the only wounding mechanism (See Dr. Martin Fackler's research, for starters)

Well, I guess I'll point out one more error. You forgot secondary missiles, as when bullet hits bone and produces bone shards; that is more likely to happen with high-energy projectiles than with low.

Perhaps you can cite for me where Dr. Fackler says that no handgun round, regardless of bullet shape, speed, or proximity to a large blood vessel (like the aorta) can ever lacerate that vessel except by direct contact, no matter how close it passes? Some sources believe that temporary cavities as little as 4 inches in diameter can be "a significant wounding factor." And Bruce Ragsdale found that pistol rounds like the 9mm ISP load were sufficent in a tissue simulant model to tear pig aorta when the bullet passed near.

There is a nice review of Dr. Fackler's debate techniques, including ad hominen attacks, here. It has been my experience that some (but not all) of his proponents have also concluded that ad hominem is the way to discuss these matters.

 

[murdoc rose]

A fine read on a subject that is hotly debated but very hard to compare. Any gun is better than none and as it shows caliber makes little difference in most circumstances.

 

[MachIVshooter]

a bullet's application of kinetic energy applied stops at impact

There are many odd statements in your last post (like the unneeded information that "We're not made of glass"--thanks! ), but this is the oddest, so I'll focus on it.

No. The bullet exerts hydrostatic force on the tissue at surface impact and throughout its passage through the tissue. We know, for example, that there is friction at the bullet-tissue interface; that the maximum temporary cavitation does not occur until after the bullet passes; and that the maximum diameter is often well away from the wound entrance. Not sure how that can happen if all hydrostatic force is transfered on impact.

You seem to be arguing that a fist's force somehow travels farther into the target that a bullet's, even though the bullet penetrates.

Stop clipping my sentences in half in an effort to discredit them. I said:

In the case of body armor, a bullet's application of kinetic energy applied stops at impact, where a punch is being pushed through by the body behind it continuing to apply force after initial impact.

Those first five words make that statement true. You instead try to represent it as a fallacy by taking it out of context.

I trust that this change, which I am happy to make, will make your mouth feel less full.

It does.

To me, my amended statement makes the same point as before, despite your bluster.

It doesn't

And, by the way, those WC bullets you like are also better at producing temporary cavitation than conical bullets, so any increased incapacitating effect could in theory be due to the increased crush cavity or the increased temporary cavity.

You really need to do some research. The temporary cavitation caused by handgun bullets amounts to nothing more than local bruising caused by capillaries that had their elastic limits exceeded.

You also need to quantify that the WC or a WFN bullet creates more (meaningless temporary) cavitation than a FMJ. I don't think there is a shred of data to back that claim up. If anything, it would cause less, because it is cutting the tissue instead of pushing it aside.

Well, I guess I'll point out one more error. You forgot secondary missiles, as when bullet hits bone and produces bone shards; that is more likely to happen with high-energy projectiles than with low.

Find me some hard data that indicates tiny bone fragments as secondary projectiles actually aid in incapacitation, and we'll discuss this further. Until then, it's pure conjecture.

Those little fragments may mean a long night for a trauma surgeon, but it is purely speculative that they would make any difference in stopping a threat.

Perhaps you can cite for me where Dr. Fackler says that no handgun round, regardless of bullet shape, speed, or proximity to a large blood vessel (like the aorta) can ever lacerate that vessel except by direct contact, no matter how close it passes? Some sources believe that temporary cavities as little as 4 inches in diameter can be "a significant wounding factor."

Fackler ML: Literature Review and Comment. Wound Ballistics Review Winter 1991: pp38–40.

Fackler is the most renowned, but not the only person to have researched and published this type of information on handgun wound ballistics.

And Bruce Ragsdale found that pistol rounds like the 9mm ISP load were sufficent in a tissue simulant model to tear pig aorta when the bullet passed near

Good to know if I'm ever attacked by a block of gelatin kept in motion by a pig aorta. Not very helpful for actually determining what does and doesn't happen inside a living human body. Gelatin expands A LOT more than human tissue when a bullet hits it. It also cracks. Some rifle rounds and shotgun slugs will even blow the block apart. Do you think that translates to those same bullets being able to rip a small person in half???

 

[JohnKSa]

Blunt trauma is a very different type of injury.

Blunt trauma is very similar to the damage done by the temporary stretch cavity.

In other words, one could think of a wound from a low energy round as being somewhat similar to a stab wound while the wound from a high energy round is somewhat similar to the combination of a stab wound and a blunt trauma.

The temporary cavitation caused by handgun bullets amounts to nothing more than local bruising caused by capillaries that had their elastic limits exceeded.

Which gets to the next point. Clearly all tissue has an elastic limit which can be exceeded and that elastic limit varies according to the tissue.

...so direct contact between bullet and tissue is the only wounding mechanism

This is demonstrably false. It might be correct to state that direct contact between bullet and tissue is the only CONSISTENT wounding mechanism when discussing handgun bullets, but it is well known that temporary stretch cavity can and does cause wounds in tissue that is inelastic. The brain, liver and spleen are vital organs that are inelastic and that can certainly be damaged by temporary stretch cavity.

Energy transfer is a big fat myth.

This is also demonstrably false. While the EFFECTS of energy transfer are certainly hotly debated, energy transfer exists and therefore is not a myth.

Lack of agreement regarding what energy transfer DOES and how it relates to handgun incapacitation, is not sufficient evidence to make the claim that it's a myth. Energy transfer/kinetic energy dissipation in a target medium is a physically demonstrable quantity and therefore is not mythical.

This is the problem I have with using wound volume/penetration as an exclusive measure of caliber effectiveness. The only way that approach can be rationalized is to make easily disproved claims about temporary cavity and kinetic energy.

Even if every one agreed 100% that temporary cavity is not a consistent wounding mechanism that doesn't mean it is not a wounding mechanism at all. An inconsistent wounding mechanism is still a wounding mechanism--by definition.

Similarly, the fact that the effects of kinetic energy transfer as applicable to handgun incapacitation are in debate doesn't begin to provide justification to claim that kinetic energy transfer is a myth. It certainly exists, it's just that there's disagreement as to the level of it's importance in handgun incapacitation.

Wound volume is certainly a worthwhile parameter to consider in handgun incapacitation but it's clearly not the only parameter to consider. Not even if we were all to accept that it's the most important one.

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

Assuming that the link above is considered reasonably authoritative, page 4 of the document should answer some of the issues raised here.

The author lists 4 components of projectile wounding.

1. Penetration
2. Permanent Cavity
3. Temporary Cavity
4. Fragmentation (Projectile pieces or secondary fragments of bone)

He goes on to state on the following page that "all handgun wounds will combine the components of penetration, permanent cavity and temporary cavity to a greater or lesser degree". While discounting the effect of temporary cavity on page 7 he does point out that inelastic organs such as the liver and brain "would show significant damage due to temporary cavitation".

 

[Prosser]

Urey Patrick was in a limited sandbox. His view was of service calibers.

Handguns can go up and down on both ends. I'm not giving up my .500JRH anytime soon for my .22 short/longrifle.

Trying to quantify the effects of pistol bullets is very hard. I go back to one of Fackler's favorite, most devastating rounds on humans was the old Swiss round, .41, at between 1300-1350 fps, 300 grain soft lead. This in the 18th century. It just flat out worked. That is real close to the .45 Colt rounds, and, some of the bigger pistol calibers. I see no reason to carry a pistol that is service caliber, other then being able to conceal it, if I have a choice of a REAL caliber and gun.
I have 22 shorts, and, they would be like getting stabbed with a .22 caliber ice pick. Thanks, but no thanks. That said, why would I give up a 275 grain HP at 1560 fps, that is already .475, and expands to 2 bore rifle size?

 

[Loosedhorse]

Stop clipping my sentences in half in an effort to discredit them

Unintentional: This one I misread. I should not have referred to bullet penetration in response. I apologize for my error, and appreciate your correction.

To me, my amended statement makes the same point as before, despite your bluster.

It doesn't

My statement says, "To me." You're saying it doesn't make the same point to me?

Fackler ML: Literature Review and Comment. Wound Ballistics Review Winter 1991: pp38–40.

Great. So you found a reference at wiki, or wherever. But what does Fackler say? Will you show us the words and data that persuade you? Since you've pooh-poohed Ragsdale's experiments, what are Fackler's experiments that show (I repeat) that no handgun round, regardless of bullet shape, speed, or proximity to a large blood vessel (like the aorta) can ever lacerate that vessel except by direct contact, no matter how close it passes? What kind of data would allow him to conclude that...and where is it?

I'll wait...

The temporary cavitation caused by handgun bullets amounts to nothing more than local bruising caused by capillaries that had their elastic limits exceeded.

Again, good hypothesis: where is your proof? You have perhaps examined all handgun bullet wounds of all calibers, and in no case was a nearby larger blood vessel ever lacerated (by exceeding its elastic limits)? Not even a stiff, sclerotic vessel?

Or did perhaps Dr. Fackler do all those examinations? And all that data is in those 3 pages you cited?

Fackler is the most renowned, but not the only person to have researched and published this type of information on handgun wound ballistics.

This is a rhetorical trick called "the appeal to authority." I am supposed to believe you because you say Fackler says it (says it's his humble opinion? says he proved it?), and yet you cannot show me his proof. You also imply other similar experts (who? MacPherson? Others?) agree, and also do not present their data and experiments.

And then you say I need to do some research: more ad hominem, implying our difference of opinion can only be explained by my ignorance. Well, I think there might be alternative explanations.

By the way, as detalied here again, the appeal to authority (often of unnamed experts), like ad hominem, is another of Fackler's favorite debate tactics. A pattern emerges.

it is purely speculative that they would make any difference in stopping a threat.

Just as it is purely speculative that they would not. Unless you have that proof I've been asking for. I've been asking folks to consider everything. You've been telling them to discard everything except penetration, diameter, and ogive; and you say Fackler justifies your stance. Well, where's the justification (as opposed to the ad hominem)?

Do you think that translates to those same bullets being able to rip a small person in half???

Non sequitur. The question would be, what does the bullet do to an aorta in tissue simulant, and do I believe it would do the same thing to an aorta in tissue?

 

[JohnKSa]

Urey Patrick was in a limited sandbox. His view was of service calibers.

That's true, however it's not much of a practical limitation. There aren't many people out there carrying supermagnums for self-defense, nor are there many who would recommend rimfires as a first choice. Service calibers work well for the average shooter just as they work well for the FBI, other law enforcement agencies and military organizations.

Definitely a good place to start, if nothing else.

...why would I give up a 275 grain HP at 1560 fps, that is already .475, and expands to 2 bore rifle size?

I'll pretend that's not rhetorical and provide a few practical reasons:

You would give it up to get:

1. Less recoil.
2. More capacity.
3. A smaller, lighter carry gun.
4. Better ammo availability and a wider variety of available carry loadings.
5. Lower practice costs.
6. A wider variety of launching platforms.
7. Faster reloads.
8. A better available variety of carry holsters.

Even if this thread determined a comprehensive answer to the question of which service caliber always provides practically superior terminal performance, that still wouldn't end the caliber controversy because it's clear that there's more to selecting a self-defense handgun caliber than just superior terminal performance. We know this because even though nobody really believes that a .25ACP offers superior terminal performance compared to a .45ACP many knowledgeable people still choose to carry a .25 instead of a .45.

The bottom line is that terminal performance is just one variable that is considered, or should be considered, when choosing a self-defense handgun. Even if the only concern is "stopping power" it's unwise to totally ignore issues like shootability since shot placement surely contributes heavily to "stopping power". Or concealability/"carryability" since you can't achieve any kind of handgun stopping power with the handgun that's at home, instead of on your hip, when you need it. Or capacity since attackers don't always come in small numbers and an empty gun offers little in the way of stopping power. Or rapid and effective recoil recovery since the bullet that misses always has miserable terminal performance on the target. And so on and so forth...

 

[easyg]

In the case of body armor, a bullet's application of kinetic energy applied stops at impact,

I have a friend who was shot while wearing body armor.
It saved is life and stopped the bullet....but it also broke one of his ribs.
Clearly the bullet's kinetic energy did not stop at the impact with the body armor.

It seems that you have a lot of learning to do regarding terminal ballistics.

Energy transfer is a big fat myth.

If you truely believe this ^^ then you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Just keep carrying your .380 and keep pretending that energy doesn't matter.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Deleted

 

[Prosser]

Johnska:
I agree with pretty much all you have stated. For me it's just sad that we are confined to the Sandbox. There are alternatives that would get the job done, and offer better ballistic performance then is available with most service calibers. However, these usually come at some sort of physical penalty, making them unsuitable for certain demographics in the LEO community. It's clear that the lowest common denominator rules in LEO firearms and caliber selections.

From years of reading this stuff it's also clear that so many variables go into a shooting that evidence is going to be somewhat non-existent in the scientific sense. There are too many variables that go into this to come to an easy to quantify solution. To make a substantial difference, one must make a large jump
in physics to come up with a possible quantified MORE effective round.

In all of this, I do find some consistency. Fackler, Marshall & Sandow, McPhearson, most of the handgun hunters around, etc. all seem to agree that velocity in the 1200-1600 fps range makes for a VERY effective handgun round, except for Marshall's evaluation of .44 Magnum shootings, which I will throw out as poor research.

They all seem to conclude that diameter is important, with the .357 Magnum being on the bottom end, and the .510 on the top. Bullet weight and design are likewise are important, with various opinions on the effectiveness of LFN vs. Hollow points, etc. Kenetic energy for the most effective rounds seems to start at 700 ft-lbs, and go up. Of the service calibers, sadly only the .357, .41 Magnum, .45 Super/Detonics, 10MM and .45 Colt fit into these parameters.

That said, tailoring your firearm and situation to the one you are in, ala such variables:
Less recoil.
More capacity.
A smaller, lighter carry gun.
Better ammo availability and a wider variety of available carry loadings.
Lower practice costs.
A wider variety of launching platforms.
Faster reloads.
A better available variety of carry holsters.

You can add the need for barrier penetration, range, terrain backstop, possible predators other then human, etc.

In other words, match your carry situation to your other variables, and make sure you are confident in your choice.

Is it adequate for the task? That is the question, and your variables determine if it is or not.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Kenetic energy for the most effective rounds seems to start at 700 ft-lbs, and go up. Of the service calibers, sadly only the .357, .41 Magnum, .45 Super/Detonics fit into these parameters.

What, no love for the 10mm? 45 Colt?

 

[Prosser]

The problem I have with both being considered service calibers is they aren't really. When's the last time you heard LEO using them, or any military service? I'm really pushing it with the others, since .357, 41, etc. haven't been in popular LEO use since they bought into bottom feeders and hollow point bullets.
10MM and Heavy .45 Colt make that threshold:
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=24
http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_25&products_id=396

Which supports my service caliber ammunition evaluation. The 10MM should be the most popular cartridge on the planet, given it's ballistics and cartridge size, not to mention the
modest recoil. It's able to reach .357 ballistics, but with a bigger bullet, in an auto-loader.

I really wish it was more popular. However, it doesn't do heavy bullets as well as .45 Detonics/Super, so I stay with that in my autos.
And, I've even got some 9MM for the very reasons John mentioned earlier. 20 oz gun vs. 35 oz gun makes a difference in which one is carried.

 

[jimmygrish]

At the risk of another warning from the moderators, let me put some truth out here. There is no such thing as handgun stopping power. If there was, our troops would not need the rifles that they are using everyday in combat in the sandbox and our LEO officers would not run back to their cruiser for the 12 gauge when it goes sideways, as we just saw in the latest scare at Virgina Tech! Just saying.

 

[JohnKSa]

There are alternatives that would get the job done, and offer better ballistic performance then is available with most service calibers. However, these usually come at some sort of physical penalty, making them unsuitable for certain demographics in the LEO community.

There are certainly alternatives that would get the job done with better ballistic performance, but "demographics in the LEO community" have very little to do with why they aren't used in LE and even less to do with why the civilian community only rarely selects them for self-defense.

Even back in Keith's day, when the LE community was quite homogeneous in terms of demographics the .44Mag was still considered a poor choice for LE. That's why the .41Mag was invented.

I listed some, but not all of the reasons why the true magnums don't and won't ever threaten the mainline service pistol calibers for LE/military and self-defense applications in my last post.

...except for Marshall's evaluation of .44 Magnum shootings, which I will throw out as poor research.

The sample size is too small to be useful. Something that can be said of a number of the M&S caliber categories.