An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

[Prosser]

Jimmygrish:

Your argument fails on logic.
With the advent of some of these new rounds we have rifle type velocity etc. and bullet weight, with bigger diameter bullets.

Simply put, the military/leo complex has to fight by certain rules, and other considerations that civilians are not ruled by.

Stopping power comes from bullet weight, velocity, and design. I have a number of pistols that will put out bullet weight and velocity only found in high powered rifles.

There are a bunch of hunters that will tell you the .475's to .510's kill and stop like 375 H&H rifles.

For example, the S&W .460 puts a 200 grain .452 bullet out at 2300 fps, and thats a factory load. Out of my .475 I'm running 275 grain Speer hollow points that open up to 2 bore size, at 1560 fps. That's a MINIMUM pressure load.

My .500 Linebaugh Maximum will shoot a 525 grain bullet at 1650 fps, if I'm stupid enough to pull the trigger. That equals the 45-120 Sharps rifle, with a bullet that is nearly 100 grains more, and a .510 instead of .458 caliber.
There are hundreds of millions of dead buffalo that testify to the effectiveness of such ballistics, not to mention some native americans.

Officers and military are limited to the least common denominator as mentioned earlier. The FBI can't use 10MM because their agents are either unskilled, unwilling to train, etc. The military is given certain rounds based on judgements made by the heads of the military that support certain philosophies. They are also limited to non-expanding bullets, ala the Hague Convention.

When you are given handguns that are not real effective, you are going to go for your rifle, as you should anyway. See my sig...

 

[lloveless]

There are many variables in bullets, penetration, energy transfer and the like. What cannot be taken into considerstion is the mindset/makeup of the individual shot. I worked on a young man shot in the forehead with .25 ACP at arms length that dropped him like a rock. No penetration of the skull (bullet followed the skull under the skin to the back of the head). He was treated and sent home within 30 minutes of arrival at ER. While the men involved in the Miami shootout absorbed lead like a sponge and kept fighting. There are sooo many variables. You roll your dice and take what comes up. Carry what is comfortable, and what you shoot accurately. Good luck.
ll

 

[Loosedhorse]

There is no such thing as handgun stopping power. If there was, our troops would not need the rifles

The fact that troops prefer rifles to handguns does not require that "there is no such thing as handgun stopping power;" it does however suggest that handguns have less stopping power than rifles (not to mention other advantages, like more accuracy at distance, and farther effective range).

Duly noted.

 

[MachIVshooter]

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

I won't argue that. In fact, I've already made that connection. Bruising is a result of blunt trama to soft tissue.

The reason for my words was pointing out that one realy cannot compare the wounding mechanism of bullets passing through a body to a severe blow by an object that does not penetrate.

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.

This is where we disagree. Energy is not the component that causes the cavity stretch/blunt trauma. A 3,000 pound car traveling at 2 MPH develops 400 ft/lbs of kinetic energy, about the same as .45 ACP. That car can hit you and knock you down, but the only blunt trauma would be from hitting your head on the ground if you didn't catch yourself. So the 400 ft/lbs of energy is not relevant to the injury, but the velocity at which your head hit the concrete is much higher than 2 MPH and can cause blunt trauma.

Similarly, a very tiny missle (say, a needle) at extremely high velocity can pass through our body with almost no discernable effect, despite the energy it makes.

So while it is a combination of object mass and impact velocity that causes injury and it is the same combination that gives us a kinetic energy figure, one cannot calculate one using the other. The kinetic energy is a simple equation, while the ability of object X at speed Y obviously has more variable WRT inflicting injury. Extreme mass with very low velocity or extreme velocity with miniscule mass create the energy, but not the wounds.

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.

Again, not arguing this. Point remains that the bullet still has to hit the tissue to affect it at handgun velocities. I hate using anecdotal evidence, but there are so very many cases out there where a bullet passed an organ in extremely close proximity and did not damage it. "He sure was lucky......another 2 mm to the right, and it would have been his heart" Kind of things from Trauma rooms all over the world

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.

Which brings us back to my original post and my point. I had said:

The only thing can can absolutely be counted on is that a bigger hole will bleed more than a smaller one in the same location, and a bullet that goes deeper (or through) will be more effective than one that doesn't.

While the EFFECTS of energy transfer are certainly hotly debated, energy transfer exists and therefore is not a myth

You're right, my wording left some to be desired. Should have siad energy transfer as a wounding mechanism is a big fat myth. Once more, I'll appeal to my examples of a large object at very low speed or a tiny one at very high speed. Also to what happens when a bullet impacts body armor, particularly hard armor. There, you have 100% and instantaneous "energy transfer" that, with rigid armor, typically causes no injury whatsoever.

Energy transfer/kinetic energy dissipation in a target medium is a physically demonstrable quantity and therefore is not mythical.

Again, we have more variables at work than energy alone. That is my point. That energy has to be put to use in such a way that it causes real trauma.

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

My mistake. To you it makes no difference, to me it does.

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?

I looked for awhile, can't find the PDF, so I'm stuck providing links to it's having been quoted in many places, sometimes not verbatim. I figured you'd prefer the actual literary reference. Besides which, you've made it abundently clear that you would rather hinge on the findings of a man who shoots ballistic gelatin filled with pig parts than the life experience of a real battlefield surgeon because you don't like the way he argues.

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?

Not experiments, experience as a trauma surgeon. I put a lot more stock in what a surgeon has seen a bullet do in a living human than what a bunch of bone and other tissues suspended in ballistic gel tell us.

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;

I left it open for conversation, pending evidence that those secondary projectiles aid in incapacitation. I never said they don't make for a worse injury. The point of the entire thread, though, is "handgun stopping power", not "handgun wounding ability with all variables taken into account".

And once again, that's why I initially said "The only thing can can absolutely be counted on is that a bigger hole will bleed more than a smaller one in the same location".

I agreed before that secondary projectiles make for a nastier wound, just that we couldn't quantify the effect of those projectiles regarding incapacitation.

I'll finish replying to everything later, I have work to do and a fmaily to spend time with

 

[USBP1969]

It's complex Indeed

Howdy Greg.

Please forgive me for not reading all the responses. The older I get the less I appreciate the "sniping" I see on forums and I'm pushing 70.

There was a heading in the shotgun results that kinda threw me. It said, "Shotgun (All, but 90% of results were 12 gauge.") That sounds to me as though 12 ga. was about 10%. I'd appreciate your input on that. - Thanks.

The head % Vs Torso stats is the first I ever have seen. Thanks. I used to think that head hits would be 100% until Jimmy Cirillo came on staff at F.L.E.T.C. In his first SOU shooting on NYPD he hit the perp three times in the head with 110 grain Super Vel .38 Special JHP. (The perp was still running when hit with the third round.)

Stopping power is so very complex that predicting how an assailant will react when hit is darn near impossible as you found in your study.

Example: A few weeks ago a local sheriff's deputy was wrestling for her .40 S&W Glock and shot the assailant three times in the chest at almost contact distance. (1 foot). The assailant then ran 50 yards, sat down and then complained of having trouble breathing. That's 3 x 180 grain .40 S&W JPP's at point blank distance in the heart - lung area.

When I was stationed at Temecula, CA in The Border Patrol I used to ride with L.AP.D. for fun when I had the chance. Their issue round was the same as ours, a Remington 38/44. (A 158 grain hard cast Round Nose Lead .38 Special at 900+ f/s.) They stated that if they were confronted by one bad guy they would shoot 5 center mass and then save the 6th for a head shot it that didn't work. I doubt that it was department policy, but just what they had decided to do based on officer involved shooting results.

You mentioned that the 9mm was most likely faster to shoot than a .38 revolver. That really depends on the shooter since Edward ('Ed') McGivern could shoot 5 shots in .4 seconds, and we regularly demonstrated shooting six shots in under a second with duty ammo for our classes with a six gun. I don't know what the cyclic rate of a Glock-17 is, but the 1911 was 5 shots max per second, according to the manuals.

Thanks for all the time and effort. I sincerely appreciate the passion it takes to undertake such a study.

Respectfully,
-kent

 

[SlicLee]

Lotta words and technical info coming out of a few fellas in this post that have read 2 different books, there are more of course but these 2 are very special.
One book, was written by 2 cops, all there info was gotten from actual shootings, descriptions from the shooters, gun,caliber, bullet used,distance, then coroners report, how many bullets in the body, where are the hits, measurements of the entry of the bullet,the wound channel, this has a temporary wound channel , stretch of skin,width and depth and permanent channel. As your aware, bodies are composed of skin,fat and 92% I dont really know exactly,of water. Hydrostatic shock,wow. Bullet used is very important as bullets react differently especially back then.
Im only going to print a bit more and if you have interest go read the books,Stopping Power.Marshall,Sanow and the other Im not sure Dr Falkner look it up.
One book,by the 2 cops were done for the benefit of the police and civilians were almost scientifically done, the other was ordered by the govt after to make fools of the 2 police officers findings because of a govt hullablue stating the opposite of their findings. One last bit of info, after stopping power, every single bullet maker started designing hollow points to open up at all velocities, and even dumb govt mayors, commissioners,etc who only allowed 38 special,FMJ bullets to police and were paying huge sums of money in court for people getting killed by bullets going thru 2 people, seeing HP's stopped inside bodies and did not go thru, only HP's to be used.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I put a lot more stock in what a surgeon has seen a bullet do in a living human than what a bunch of bone and other tissues suspended in ballistic gel tell us.

That's fine, IMHO. I would point out that there are a lot of trauma surgeons, but not all of them share Dr. Fackler's opinion.

I would also point out that most of Dr. Fackler's contributions in the field of wound ballistics revolve around not surgery but ballistic gelatin, which he is chiefly responsible for standardizing. His most famous works (showing wounding profiles of various projectiles) were accompished with that medium.

It generally agreed that temporary cavities occur for all supersonic projectiles, and that for some fracturable organs (brain, liver, spleen, etc.) ANY temporary cavitation will produce corresponding damage. It is generally agreed that low velocity rounds (38 Special, .45 ACP) result in wound tracks similar to stab wounds, and that high velocity rifle rounds produce massive damage outside of the crush cavity.

The point of debate here is what happens in between. Fackler is often seen to argue that below a certain threshold (perhaps 2100-3000 fps) no significant wounding occurs from the temporary cavity. Other researchers (going back to the 1970s, and still today) say that there is no magic threshold: the larger the temporary cavity, the more damage by the temporary cavity.

Again, perhaps Fackler's position seems intrinsically obvious to some, just as the contrary position seems obvious to others. I don't think either side has proven their case definitively; in fact, the ferocity often boils down to: "I can PROVE that you HAVEN'T PROVED your point!"

a few fellas in this post that have read 2 different books

Oh, I think it'd be safe to assume that more than two books have been read on this subject.

 

[JohnKSa]

Energy is not the component that causes the cavity stretch/blunt trauma.

Energy transfer/dissipation in the target medium correlates to temporary stretch cavity size. It's well-accepted that temporary stretch cavity is a function of kinetic energy. The quote on page 6 of Urey's document ties kinetic energy to temporary cavity.

"The amount of kinetic energy lost in tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause remote injuries produced by a high velocity rifle bullet."

A 3,000 pound car traveling at 2 MPH develops 400 ft/lbs of kinetic energy, about the same as .45 ACP. That car can hit you and knock you down, but the only blunt trauma would be from hitting your head on the ground if you didn't catch yourself.

Not a reasonable analogy. A car moving 2 mph moves you out of the way while a bullet moving 800fps doesn't move you at all. Therefore the car's energy is dissipated moving 180lbs slowly out if it's way instead of damaging tissue. If the car hit you at 2mph and you remained stationary and absorbed the entire impact energy in your body tissue instead of getting pushed out of the way (in other words, similar to what happens with a bullet impact--you don't get pushed out of the way--your tissue absorbs the energy) then you would suffer blunt trauma from the impact.

Similarly, a very tiny missle (say, a needle) at extremely high velocity can pass through our body with almost no discernable effect, despite the energy it makes.

As the quote in Urey's article makes clear, and as I've said, it's not the energy the projectile has to begin with, it's the energy dissipated in the target medium. A tiny, non-expanding projectile dissipates very little energy in the target medium. It zips right through and out the other side with most of the kinetic energy it entered with. No energy dissipation, no temporary cavity.

Point remains that the bullet still has to hit the tissue to affect it at handgun velocities. I hate using anecdotal evidence, but there are so very many cases out there where a bullet passed an organ in extremely close proximity and did not damage it. "He sure was lucky......another 2 mm to the right, and it would have been his heart" Kind of things from Trauma rooms all over the world.

A handgun bullet has to hit ELASTIC tissue to damage it but if there's a temporary stretch cavity in or near INELASTIC tissue then the bullet can damage it without touching it via the same mechanism that the capillaries are ruptured. The stretch cavity exceeds the elastic limits of the tissue (easy to do with inelastic tissue) which causes it to tear and bleed. In inelastic organs like the spleen, liver and brain that is catastrophic.

Fackler is often seen to argue that below a certain threshold (perhaps 2100-3000 fps) no significant wounding occurs from the temporary cavity.

That seems to be the crux of the matter, and in my opinion it's a detriment to his credibility. There may be a threshold for seeing signficant wounding in ELASTIC tissues, but clearly if there's any temporary cavity at all, it can cause wounding in INELASTIC tissues.

I don't know what the cyclic rate of a Glock-17 is, but the 1911 was 5 shots max per second, according to the manuals.

The cyclic rate of a Glock 18 (which should be a little slower than that of a Glock 17 given the slightly heavier slide) is about 1100 rpm, IIRC. About 18 rounds per second. That seems to agree well with the cyclic rate of other autopistols that information is available on (1000-1300rpm) so I would expect something similar from the 1911--I suspect the manual is telling you what's acceptable, or maybe what's likely/possible with a human shooter.

A very experienced shooter or someone bump-firing an autopistol can easily exceed 5 rounds per second.

 

[USBP1969]

John, I believe that the 5 rounds / second is probably accurate info. I shot wheelguns in IPSC , but Jimmy Cirillo kept bugging me about trying a 1911. Since we were not permitted to carry semi-autos back then I really didn't want to compete with something I couldn't carry, but finally did switch for a year since I wasn't out arresting folks during my years at the academy.

The first thing I had to learn was to slow down my trigger pull. I kept locking up the two 1911's I was issued. The armorer stated that I was pulling the trigger for the next shot before the slide locked into battery. - kw

 

[USBP1969]

Here's a Glock cycling quite fast: (This guys is indeed a piece of work.)

http://www.youtube.com/user/FPSRussia#p/u/4/FbsgHbXubGU

 

[JohnKSa]

http://youtu.be/H5gYMrdJLFk

1911 firing 7 rounds in less than a second. The video second counter goes to 10 before he starts firing and doesn't change to 11 until after the burst is over. As nearly as I can tell with some rough stopwatch work and trying to be conservative so as to not overestimate the cyclic rate, the gun was emptied in about 0.6 to 0.7 seconds which works out to between 10 and 12 rounds a second.

The armorer stated that I was pulling the trigger for the next shot before the slide locked into battery.

Unless you were shooting splits down around 0.1 second and under, I think that the armorer's explanation doesn't wash.

Poking around on the web supports the idea that a 1911 has a cyclic rate of about 1000rpm (16-17 rounds per second) or maybe a bit higher which agrees well with what we know of other roughly similar autopistols.

 

[Prosser]

"As the quote in Urey's article makes clear, and as I've said, it's not the energy the projectile has to begin with, it's the energy dissipated in the target medium. A tiny, non-expanding projectile dissipates very little energy in the target medium. It zips right through and out the other side with most of the kinetic energy it entered with. No energy dissipation, no temporary cavity."

This might explain why the larger calibers are such devastating killers. First they enter with sometimes, literally, a ton of energy. Here's my .500 Linebaugh Maximum load:Energy of 2,125 foot-pounds for a 525 grain bullet at 1350 fps.
I suspect that as the diameter increases, the amount of energy dispersed increases geometrically. Not to mention that the momentum of a much heavier bullet means the energy transfer is maintained through the entire target. A number of the above loads went end to end on buffalo, only to be caught under the off side, super thick and elastic skin. Even LFN type bullets expand at the combination of velocity and resistance.

To adapt to a lighter game animal, like deer, take a 275 grain light load, at 1560 fps:Energy of 1,486 foot-pounds for a 275 grain bullet at 1560 fps.
This round has no recoil to speak of, out of a FA 83.
It hits, expands quickly to 2 bore size, leaves a gaping hole, and transfers about 3/4 of a ton of energy, with a 4" cavity.

One comment from Gary Reeder kind of says it all about the .475 and bigger cartridges. There is a group that is always trying to use expanding bullets, wanting their cake and eating it too. Reeder would say,
"You don't need an expanding bullet! It's already .475 or .500.!"
The point being that handgun hunters have noticed that with the larger calibers expanding bullets are not necessary for devastating, effective kills.

Please explain how these large calibers kill so effectively, if the energy transfer doesn't play a part in the job?

If you read or hunt enough, you find that the same issue arises with the .475 and larger rifle calibers.

 

[USBP1969]

John - Please see PM.

 

[buck460XVR]

The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s. I've stopped worrying about trying to find the "ultimate" bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough "stopping power." Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important.

This summarizes an extensive project thoroughly done. It comes from fact, not opinion. I too have been from the school of "there is no magic bullet" and folks should carry what they themselves are most comfortable with....regardless of internet banter.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

JohnKSa writes:

That seems to be the crux of the matter, and in my opinion it's a detriment to his credibility. There may be a threshold for seeing signficant wounding in ELASTIC tissues, but clearly if there's any temporary cavity at all, it can cause wounding in INELASTIC tissues.

Fackler has written several times about differences in wounding effects between elastic (lung, muscle, bowel, vessels, nerve) and inelastic tissues (brain, liver, kidney, pancreas, spleen). A temporary cavity produced by a handgun (common combat cartridge) can indeed damage inelastic tissues - which increases "permanent disruption" above and beyond what the bullet physically contacts and crushes (permanent cavity).

A handgun bullet can also cause tearing of elastic tissues (such as elastic tissues between ribs) because the tissue is: 1) restrained, and 2) cannot stretch far enough to tolerate the size of the temporary cavity produced - the temporary cavity is larger than the area/volume of the elastic tissue that is being stretched.

 

[Prosser]

GE put a lot of work into this article, so I'm going to go through it a bit.

One factor that I don't see listed, and a couple big keys for me are:

Distance at which the shooting happened.
Day or night.
Source? News media are not in the truth business. They are in the get the headline out, get the circulation, publish retractions in 4 point type on the back page business.

I like his discussion statements:
"Getting accurate data on nearly 1800 shootings was hard work. I couldn't imagine breaking it down farther than what I did here. I also believe the data for the .25, .32 and .44 magnum should be viewed with suspicion. I simply don't have enough data (in comparison to the other calibers) to draw an accurate comparison. I reported the data I have, but I really don't believe that a .32 ACP incapacitates people at a higher rate than the .45 ACP!"

"The .38 SPL probably has the slowest rate of fire (long double action revolver trigger pulls and stout recoil in small revolvers) and the fewest rounds fired to get an incapacitation (1.87). Conversely the 9mm can probably be fired fastest of the common calibers and it had the most rounds fired to get an incapacitation (2.45). The .40 (2.36) and the .45 (2.08) split the difference. It is my personal belief that there really isn't much difference between each of these calibers. It is only the fact that some guns can be fired faster than others that causes the perceived difference in stopping power. If a person takes an average of 5 seconds to stop after being hit, the defender who shoots a lighter recoiling gun can get more hits in that time period. It could be that fewer rounds would have stopped the attacker (given enough time) but the ability to fire more quickly resulted in more hits being put onto the attacker. It may not have anything to do with the stopping power of the round."

Statistics apply to the average person in a shooting. I guess it's really important for who those people are. The ideal self-defense weapon for Lee Jurras, or Bob Munden is going to be different from your average shooter.

Also the time and range would make a difference. It might be that the repeated banging away of a gun at close range has an effect similar to a flash-bang grenade at close range.

"Another data piece that leads me to believe that the majority of commonly carried defensive rounds are similar in stopping power is the fact that all four have very similar failure rates. If you look at the percentage of shootings that did not result in incapacitation, the numbers are almost identical. The .38, 9mm, .40, and .45 all had failure rates of between 13% and 17%."

The above theory I don't think is in question, at least not by me.

"In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this."

"Now compare the numbers of the handgun calibers with the numbers generated by the rifles and shotguns. For me there really isn't a stopping power debate. All handguns suck! If you want to stop someone, use a rifle or shotgun!"

If you look at the small sample of .44 Magnum data, it gives a pretty good argument to the above statement. First off, compare the the number of people shot, and the number of hits. Appears that the .44 magnum is near 50% better with on shot stops, and, accuracy wise is the TOP of the handguns, and better then the rifles. So much for the big guns are harder to hit the target with. The .44 magnum also gives a slightly better one shot stop then the rifles and shotguns?

The 45ACP accuracy figures also give evidence that the round is easier to shoot well then the other service calibers, and comes in more accurate platforms.

"Greg Ellifritz is the full time firearms and defensive tactics training officer for a central Ohio police department. He holds instructor or master instructor certifications in more than 75 different weapon systems, defensive tactics programs and police specialty areas."

Greg's credentials may have something to do with the conclusions he draws.

If I was a firearms instructor, instructing people who have no choice of what caliber, weapon or ammunition they must carry and fire, I would want to reinforce the message that any of these service rounds will do the job, if you are accurate, fast and well-trained. Faith, confidence, and training are far more important the caliber. Ask Bob Munden.

 

[NM Mountainman]

[Disclosure: I have no law enforcement or military experience; I am not an expert in any field. I have a lot of hunting and target shooting experience, but I have never witnessed a situation in which a human being was shot. I have no professional credentials related to engineering or ballistics. I have worked as a consultant for a ballistics lab which did a lot of research in terminal ballistics. I had the opportunity to observe some of their tests and to discuss a lot of questions about terminal ballistics with the ballistics experts and researchers who worked there. My professional experiences have provided me with the opportunity to learn how to design and evaluate research. I have learned that when researchers use statistics, they must use the statistics according to established research guidelines. Otherwise, the results prove nothing. ]

I read the article, and it made me sad. Why? Because the author seems to be a police officer who is genuinely concerned about LEO training, survival, and safety. He wants to find a method for selecting the best ammo for LEO and civilian self defense by examining and analyzing the terminal effects of various kinds of ammo in real world shootings. I think he tried to be honest, accurate, thorough, and non-biased. I think the same things could be said about Marshall and Sanow. These experienced cops and ex-cops conducted most of their research on their own dime and during their own time with no realistic expectation of a financial reward or earning a big promotion. (I doubt that M & S got rich from the sale of their books.) Anyone who has known any LEO's personally will agree that money and spare time are scarce and precious resources for most LEO's.

The sad thing about it is that the author invested a huge amount of time and effort during a period of ten years, but the results of his research provide no reliable or scientifically valid guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of ammo used for self defense. In other words, the research provides no real evidence which can enable us to draw any conclusions or which can be used for making decisions about comparing and selecting self defense ammo. The value of this research is very limited because of the problems with data collection, research design, and problems with the statistics. (In fairness, we should also recognize that much of the work published by experienced professional researchers and scientists is also invalid because of problems with research design and the improper use of statistics. Doing good research can be very difficult, time consuming, and expensive.)

One of the most important considerations in research design is knowing what question(s) to ask. The author could have learned to formulate his questions better by following the example of M&S. M&S realized that asking the question, "Which caliber is the most effective?" was unlikely to provide meaningful results. They recognized the necessity of comparing specific loads and acknowledged the importance of brand, caliber, bullet type and construction, bullet weight, and velocity. Thus they tried, for example, to compare the effectiveness of a .45 ACP 230 gr FMJ at 850 fps to a .357 mag 158 gr LSWC at 1250 fps. When the ammunition companies changed their offerings and introduced new kinds of ammo using new bullet designs, M & S collected data on the new and redesigned ammo and published the results.

Due to the problems inherent in collecting and analyzing this kind of data (and the impossibility of conducting realistic controlled experiments), I doubt that a well financed team of expert professional researchers working for ten years could provide definitive evidence based answers to the questions which the author tried to answer with the kind of data he had available. The events the author investigated are too complex and involve too many variables to be adequately measured and summarized by counting the number of hits (or by counting one shot stops as in the work of M&S.) It's not enough to have data based on "real world" experience. It takes more than adding up a bunch of numbers, calculating some means, and making some graphs or charts to produce statistically valid results which can provide reliable evidence for decision making.

In his summary and conclusions, the author acknowledged a lot of the problems in his research, methods and results. To me, this shows that he's an honest man, and that he is conscientious about trying to do a good job. He emphasized what he believed was his most important conclusion: "No matter what gun you are shooting, you can only expect a little more than half of the people you shoot to be immediately incapacitated by your first hit." He also concluded that, "No matter which caliber you use, you have to hit something important in order to stop someone!"; and he has "stopped worrying about trying to find the 'ultimate' bullet." I doubt that anyone with any experience or anyone who has read much about the topic would disagree. And I bet he probably already knew that before he started his research.

Some shooters and LEO may see some value in this because it was done by an experienced cop "who's been there" and who has investigated real shootings. They may feel the results are of more value because "he's one of us", not some doctor or PhD scientist shooting Jello in a lab. I respect the author's experience, and I appreciate his service as an LEO. I think he has probably provided a lot of training which helped a lot of LEO's to survive some pretty tough and dangerous situations. He probably possesses a lot of practical knowledge based on his experience and the shared experience of other LEO's. I think he probably deserves a raise and more recognition for his service. Nevertheless, when it comes to doing research to provide valid evidence to be used for decision making, the research must be designed and conducted properly for it to be of value.

 

[481]

[Disclosure: I have no law enforcement or military experience; I am not an expert in any field. I have a lot of hunting and target shooting experience, but I have never witnessed a situation in which a human being was shot. I have no professional credentials related to engineering or ballistics. I have worked as a consultant for a ballistics lab which did a lot of research in terminal ballistics. I had the opportunity to observe some of their tests and to discuss a lot of questions about terminal ballistics with the ballistics experts and researchers who worked there. My professional experiences have provided me with the opportunity to learn how to design and evaluate research. I have learned that when researchers use statistics, they must use the statistics according to established research guidelines. Otherwise, the results prove nothing. ]

I read the article, and it made me sad. Why? Because the author seems to be a police officer who is genuinely concerned about LEO training, survival, and safety. He wants to find a method for selecting the best ammo for LEO and civilian self defense by examining and analyzing the terminal effects of various kinds of ammo in real world shootings. I think he tried to be honest, accurate, thorough, and non-biased. I think the same things could be said about Marshall and Sanow. These experienced cops and ex-cops conducted most of their research on their own dime and during their own time with no realistic expectation of a financial reward or earning a big promotion. (I doubt that M & S got rich from the sale of their books.) Anyone who has known any LEO's personally will agree that money and spare time are scarce and precious resources for most LEO's.

The sad thing about it is that the author invested a huge amount of time and effort during a period of ten years, but the results of his research provide no reliable or scientifically valid guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of ammo used for self defense. In other words, the research provides no real evidence which can enable us to draw any conclusions or which can be used for making decisions about comparing and selecting self defense ammo. The value of this research is very limited because of the problems with data collection, research design, and problems with the statistics. (In fairness, we should also recognize that much of the work published by experienced professional researchers and scientists is also invalid because of problems with research design and the improper use of statistics. Doing good research can be very difficult, time consuming, and expensive.)

One of the most important considerations in research design is knowing what question(s) to ask. The author could have learned to formulate his questions better by following the example of M&S. M&S realized that asking the question, "Which caliber is the most effective?" was unlikely to provide meaningful results. They recognized the necessity of comparing specific loads and acknowledged the importance of brand, caliber, bullet type and construction, bullet weight, and velocity. Thus they tried, for example, to compare the effectiveness of a .45 ACP 230 gr FMJ at 850 fps to a .357 mag 158 gr LSWC at 1250 fps. When the ammunition companies changed their offerings and introduced new kinds of ammo using new bullet designs, M & S collected data on the new and redesigned ammo and published the results.

Due to the problems inherent in collecting and analyzing this kind of data (and the impossibility of conducting realistic controlled experiments), I doubt that a well financed team of expert professional researchers working for ten years could provide definitive evidence based answers to the questions which the author tried to answer with the kind of data he had available. The events the author investigated are too complex and involve too many variables to be adequately measured and summarized by counting the number of hits (or by counting one shot stops as in the work of M&S.) It's not enough to have data based on "real world" experience. It takes more than adding up a bunch of numbers, calculating some means, and making some graphs or charts to produce statistically valid results which can provide reliable evidence for decision making.

In his summary and conclusions, the author acknowledged a lot of the problems in his research, methods and results. To me, this shows that he's an honest man, and that he is conscientious about trying to do a good job. He emphasized what he believed was his most important conclusion: "No matter what gun you are shooting, you can only expect a little more than half of the people you shoot to be immediately incapacitated by your first hit." He also concluded that, "No matter which caliber you use, you have to hit something important in order to stop someone!"; and he has "stopped worrying about trying to find the 'ultimate' bullet." I doubt that anyone with any experience or anyone who has read much about the topic would disagree. And I bet he probably already knew that before he started his research.

Some shooters and LEO may see some value in this because it was done by an experienced cop "who's been there" and who has investigated real shootings. They may feel the results are of more value because "he's one of us", not some doctor or PhD scientist shooting Jello in a lab. I respect the author's experience, and I appreciate his service as an LEO. I think he has probably provided a lot of training which helped a lot of LEO's to survive some pretty tough and dangerous situations. He probably possesses a lot of practical knowledge based on his experience and the shared experience of other LEO's. I think he probably deserves a raise and more recognition for his service. Nevertheless, when it comes to doing research to provide valid evidence to be used for decision making, the research must be designed and conducted properly for it to be of value.

NM,

Yours is probably one of the better perspectives that I've seen regarding this specific article.

 

[smitty704]

Great article, this guy really put some effort into this. It really changed my perspective on the whole " which caliber is best" idea. I guess like others have said, carry what you are most comfortable with, and what you are most fast and accurate with. For me I carry .45, but that may change in the future. To each his own....... smitty704

 

[JohnKSa]

Fackler has written several times about differences in wounding effects between elastic (lung, muscle, bowel, vessels, nerve) and inelastic tissues (brain, liver, kidney, pancreas, spleen). A temporary cavity produced by a handgun (common combat cartridge) can indeed damage inelastic tissues - which increases "permanent disruption" above and beyond what the bullet physically contacts and crushes (permanent cavity).

Thank you sir, for setting the record straight.

I should have been more careful to verify Dr. Fackler's opinion and stance before responding to quotes and assertions attributed to him as if they actually came directly from him.

His position, as stated by you above, makes perfect sense and is consistent with the science of terminal ballistics and the physics of kinetic energy and temporary cavity as far as I can see.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I should have been more careful to verify Dr. Fackler's opinion and stance before responding to quotes and assertions attributed to him as if they actually came directly from him.

The "no pistol rounds can cause trauma except by permanent crush cavity" is frequently argued, and is an amalgam of claims made by Fackler, MacPherson, DiMaio and others; for example, Urey Patrick concludes (about handgun calibers), "Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound." If Dr. Fackler has ever vociferously contradicted that statement, I have not seen it. A (I think) suprising good look at the "controversy" (disagreement) can be found at wiki.

Perhaps I should say "one of the controversies," as there are actually two: do temporary cavities from handguns matter; and can pressure waves in tissue "shock" certain neural structures enough to cause them to temporarily lose function, and yet not to tear them, producing only subtle changes on pathological examination? There is some evidence for both. Dr. Fackler seems to have dismissed both.

What did Fackler say? As to "magic numbers":

tissue tearing from being displaced and stretched beyond its elastic limits by temporary cavitation, as might be caused by a 6-mm (24 caliber) sphere traveling in the 3,000- to 3,300-foot/second (914- to 1,006-m/second) range?

Cavitation depends not just on speed but projectiles size and shape (and Fackler makes that point often), so a definitive lower threshold hasn't been done for all bullets, although it is implied that such thresholds exist.

Dr. Fackler also said,

Thus projectile fragmentation can turn the energy used in temporary cavitation into a truly destructive force because it is focused on areas weakened by fragment paths rather than being absorbed evenly by the tissue mass.

Given the tendency for certain .357, .40, and 10mm rounds to fragment, to produce secondary missiles, and to produce fairly large temporary cavities, one wonders how certain we should be that handgun rounds cannot take advantage of that mechanism. (True, Fackler does maintain that handgun bullet fragments are not found deeper tha 1 inch in simulant.)


I do not dispute Dr. Facker's status. But I'm not sure any scientist is incapable of holding beliefs that may eventually be proved wrong. A failure to allow for alternate possibilities seems to me against the scientific tradition, unless the opposing belief can be labeled (like UFOs) as quack science. And I believe that is why we often see such vigorous attack on those arguing against Fackler's positions.

 

[tipoc]

Plus 1 for NM Mountainman.


tipoc

 

[MachIVshooter]

Not a reasonable analogy. A car moving 2 mph moves you out of the way while a bullet moving 800fps doesn't move you at all. Therefore the car's energy is dissipated moving 180lbs slowly out if it's way instead of damaging tissue. If the car hit you at 2mph and you remained stationary and absorbed the entire impact energy in your body tissue instead of getting pushed out of the way (in other words, similar to what happens with a bullet impact--you don't get pushed out of the way--your tissue absorbs the energy) then you would suffer blunt trauma from the impact.

But it is a valid analogy, because it is exactly the point I was trying to make. And before we hypothesize about the kind of injury that results from being struck by a very slow moving automobile when your body cannot move, I will tell you that I've had vehicles pin me at low speeds more than once when another idiot in the shop was careless. Didn't feel good, but minor bruising was the extent of my injuries. Once was between two vehicles, the other a vehicle and a tool box. Cars were idling in gear, moving about 2-3 MPH after just a few feet.

I've never been shot, but I believe I can reasonably say that the effects would be much worse.

I maintain that the energy itself isn't the wounding mechanism, but how it is applied. Even comparing one firearm to another, we can see this. One could, I suppose, argue that % of energy transfer matters. I will state it this way (as I already have): The higher energy rounds have the ability to drive a larger projectile deeper, which results in a larger wound. That is where energy matters. If the bullet does not exit the medium, then it has used 100% of it's energy inside the target. If you want to call this "energy transfer", then I guess go ahead. My point is that "transferring" a given amount of energy to a target is not what causes the injury, but how that energy is used up. Once more, I'll refer to my having been pinned by cars. 100% of the kinetic energy they developed at those low speeds was used up when they pinned me and ceased to roll further. Lets call it 500 ft/lbs. Similarly, if I were shot with a .357 magnum round that didn't exit my body, 100% of it's energy would also have been used. But the way the 500 ft/lbs was used resulted in very minor injury from one and would be serious (even mortal) injury from the other.

Similarly, it is not the energy that causes ballistic shock waves or temporary cavitation, but a combination of bullet size/shape and velocity. As I said before, while the energy is also a calculation of mass and velocity, we cannot conclude that X amount of energy will cause Y amount of trauma. A 1,000 grain bullet at 1000 FPS creates ~2,200 ft/lbs of energy, as does a 100 grain bullet at 3,200 FPS. So with these two rounds, we have basically identical kinetic energy. But I don't think anyone believes the type of injury from either round would be the same.

This is the point I'm trying to make regarding kinteic energy and what it actually means regarding wounding ability. Yes, it is important, in that it dictates the ability of a bullet to expand and penetrate. Energy in and of itself, though, does not create the ballistic wound.

Saying that a higher energy round will cause more damage than a low energy round is a generally a true statement, but that is only because the high energy rounds are either driving bullets faster, driving bigger bullets, or both.

On the "threshold" of velocity at which temporary cavities become permanent crush cavities, I don't necessarily agree that there is a magic number. My personal belief based on field experience as a hunter and on reading is that we start to see those effects somewhere around 2,000 FPS, becoming progressively more severe as velocity increases. I do not believe there would be a significant difference in a wound caused by the same bullet at 1,900 FPS vs. 2,100 FPS. What I mean to say is, I don't agree that there is exacly a "Magic number", below which you see small track handgun wounds and above which you see massive cavitation rifle wounds.

 

[Prosser]

That's funny, since I do believe there are some pretty magic numbers. Numbers many people agree on:
1350 fps in a handgun projectile. Light bullets seem to get decent penetration.
LFN bullets have the nose deform, and essentially become expanding bullets.

2150 fps with a 500 grain .45 caliber or bigger bullet. Since the invention of the Nitro Express .450, this has been the Holy Grail of the first level of stopping rifles.

Level 3: 2150 fps, 600 grain, .510 caliber bullet. Just stops stuff.

2700 fps with a 300 grain Barnes X bullet in .375. Has been observed to be
VERY effective on most all game.

440 grain, .500 caliber, at 950 fps.
525 grains at 1100 fps, in .510 caliber, or faster.
420 grains at 1350 fps in .475 caliber.

In all of these examples, the bullet is big, and has momentum. It is NOT likely to slow very much, or, if it does, it takes feet not inches to accomplish that.

The common denominator is a long, cylindrical crush cavity, that doesn't taper
like a cone, which is what most service caliber rounds do.

I also suspect that as the caliber and velocity increase, the energy transfered on first impact increases geometrically. The increase in effectiveness of the .475 and .510's over the .45 don't make sense, otherwise.

I also believe that with certain types of game there is a huge difference between 1900 fps and 2150 fps, all things being equal. Yes, it doesn't make sense numbers wise, but only observation wise.

Likewise the effectiveness of 400-525 grain bullets at velocities of 950 fps
seem to kill far more effectively then their numbers would suggest.

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

For those who like to compare blunt force trauma to a gun shot wound, consider this:

I have a forensic text book which shows in graphic detail, the skull of a man who was hit by a tear gas canister - the kind used by police for riot control.

The poor guy took one to the frontal bone (thickest part of the cranium) at contact distance. Half of his head was obliterated in a way that doesn't even compare to the skulls shown on the next few pages, which were shot with center fire rifles and magnum handguns. The tear gas canister evaporated the left frontal bone, and the adjoining temporal and sagital bones were shivered.

Obviously, a projectile as heavy as a gas canister has a huge amount of 'energy', even at a very low velocity.

Ask yourself what would have happened if that same man would have been hit by the same canister, only in the torso at several yards distance? Likely a few broken ribs and a lot of nasty bruising. Perhaps a deflated lung, from said broken ribs. He likely would not have died, and may not have even been 'incapacitated'.

Why? Because blunt force trauma, no matter how powerful, will never be a gun shot wound. Blunt force trauma just doesn't penetrate, and therefore MUST hit precisely on an exposed vital area to have an immediate and decisive effect. The only exception being special or fluke cases where something like a broken bone may cause secondary damage to an unlucky victim.