Caliber, bullet, "One shot stop", placement.... Stopping power

[duns]

I can't take this argument anymore...

But I will say that if anybody trains and expects one stop shots, aside from being the most ridiculous marksman ever that can get head shot results from any angle and situation, then I feel sorry for you...

I didn't see anyone saying that they expected one-shot stops. The Marshall and Sanow analysis of one-shot stops was just a method of comparing the effectiveness of the different rounds. It would be difficult to analyze the stops achieved with multiple shots -- for example, if someone was stopped with 26 rounds, did it take 26 shots to stop them or did the first 5 shots do the trick? The one-shot stop analysis is a way of avoiding this complication.

 

[agtman]

When mere amateurs can't agree, we should let an expert weigh in ...


Stopping Power ...








... Defined.

 

[Skylerbone]

+1 what Tuner said, Monkey, the 5.7 was developed to defeat body armor which cannot normally be penetrated with the other calibers listed. You could with .22mag but the remaining energy would be far less.

Rely on accuracy, shoot only if necessary (justified deadly force), leave jello analysis to the people who read tea leaves or just enjoy as a desert.

I chose the .40 S&W for size, ammo selection and because shooting someone with a 1911 means a police evidence locker will leave that beautiful pistol rusted, pitted and scratched while the shooting is scrutinized. Mine is ugly and plastic.

Every case is different. My father told me about a gun collector who shot himself in the head with a .45ACP. He was a terminal cancer patient in a lot of pain, simple suicide. What complicated matters was the coroner who asked where the second gun was. At autopsy, a second smaller hole in the chest was found in addition to the gaping hole in his head. Seems the man blew out his sinus cavity and little else and, while nursing a massive headache, retrieved a second loaded pistol to put one through the heart. Four officers on scene failed to recognize what had happened.

Right idea + wrong location = painful rework. The bullet that penetrates least is the one that misses.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

One mile...

In my CCW class, the instructor stated that a rule of thumb for bullet travel is one mile.

That's something to consider if using a weapon in a public place for self defense or even in your own home. A bullet can go through a wall and penetrate your neighbor's house.

I would bring up several important aspects: the type of bullet-hollow point, but not any hollow point. Hornady makes an outstanding hollow point bullet.

Caliber-consider caliber combined with a hollow point. Think-stopping power but stopping bullet travel.

The use of a weapon in self defense is very serious. That's why one should fire 300+ rounds a month at the range and be a top notch shooter if one wants to be a CCW holder.

 

[duns]

The laws of physics are helpful here, inasmuch as we can say that a BB fired at 400 fps will carry more destructive power than a brick at 10. The collective sense of owners, as captured by reports and surveys, is that .38 spl or 9mm represent the lower end and .45 and .357 the upper of a standard CCW round. Go lower and stopping power requires precise placement with no room for error, and higher leads to rounds that are difficult to control and weapons too large to comfortably conceal.

Outliers abound, with many reports of smaller and larger calibers proving successful. The calculus is dynamic because smaller rounds allow for better concealment or more rounds carried, larger rounds have more force but less capacity onboard. I've found it easy to put all 6 or 7 .357s in a tight group, but can't manage that with a .45. For me, a .357 is comfortable, whereas the .45 is just too much gun. Others handle the .45 with aplomb. So...

That's about all you can say.

I agree! Very well put.

 

[wow6599]

I have no idea what stopping power is, but maybe it's a 385 grain slug from a 12 gauge at 10 feet

 

[MikePGS]

If I set out 3 bullets, side by side, 9mm, 40, 45 and look at them, my brain tells me the 45 MUST work better since it's bigger.

A lot of black powder guns have bullets that look pretty huge so maybe that would be even better then a 45, right?

 

[MICHAEL T]

He was shot 7 times with a .45ACP before it incapacitated him. These were not shots fired in rapid succession, either. They were shots fired slowly and with aim, not "cover fire".. 5 of the 7 were considered center mass and he JUST KEPT COMING!!

I would like to know what type of 45 ammo plain old ball or a good brand HP

 

[Snake]

10mm is my favorite. Not for the faint of heart...

 

[Snake]

Amen Brother !!

Hail to the 10mm!

 

[sniper5]

If I can't get to my 20ga shotgun (5 #3 Buck loads in the tube, 6 on the stock), my second choice is a 6" Ruger GP100 .357 mag with 22grains of H110 under a 125gr Hornady XTP. Look up that one on the chart.

 

[RandyB]

Looking at the mechanism of injury at handgun velocities its a matter of puting metal into meat. Compared to the mechanisms at rifle velocity, the handgun is pretty paltry. So when a bullet at low velocity hits tissue, it tears flesh, the bigger the bullet (either by caliber or expansion) the more width of tissue damaged. Typically the heavier a bullet, the deeper the penetration, (os similar bullet construction). A .355 to .451 hole is not a major difference. Put either into a heart or CNS and it will be more effective than one that just clips a lung. As mentioned a .22 to the brain is more effective than a less hit with a 'better' weapon. For what its worth, I carry 9mm, .45 acp, .38 special, .357 and feel adequately armed with each.

 

[sniper5]

Absolutely 100% agree. Bullets punch holes. It needs to be in the right place, big enough, and deep enough to hit something the victim needs to remain functional. If not, the process needs to be repeated until that happens. The difference in handgun rounds is paltry at best. Anybody who doesn't believe that needs to spend time in a trauma center and see gunshot victims.

 

[speaksoftly]

.. 5 of the 7 were considered center mass and he JUST KEPT COMING!!
So.. the whole thing people kept telling me about "hit 'em in the elbow with a .45 and that'll kill 'em dead!" is crap. There is no magic round, the 9mm is as effective as the .45 in EVERY situation, and most of what you hear people get on thier soap boxes about is ballistic mumbo-jumbo. Real world is completely different than what it looks like on paper.

These stories tell us far more about the "power" of bullets than paper projections ever will. Sadly though, these stories are not only the key to "stopping power" myths but are largely the most ignored stories. Why? I think it's because people just WANT to believe that they're safer with 8 shots of .45 rather than 20 rounds of 9mm. Are they overcompensating for something? Haha maybe. Personally, I shoot .40 because I can always find it and can shoot it accurately. Sure I could buy a 10mm or 357 mag and do fine at the range but how would I do when put under stress and pressure? Would I be able to manage the load as well as I can the .40? I don't know therefore I don't carry it. I'll let the big manly men in their jacked up pickups tell me how puny my .40 pistols are compared to their .45's but I've yet to meet the man who wanted to take a round from my .40 so that's all I need to know.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Buy the ammo you can control and buy the ammo you can afford in bulk. Then go out and shoot, shoot, and just for a change of pace go shoot some more. I'd rather feel safe relying on my ability to be deadly than relying on my ammo's ability to be deadly.

-Marcos

 

[Clarence]

The "Less filling - Tastes great" argument continues...........The 9mm is to the .45 ACP what the 5.56 is to the 7.62..............and the 5.56 is nowhere close to the 7.62 in the ability for one-shot stops.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

duns writes:

For a scientific review of the criticisms made of Marshall and Sanow's work, see http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701268.pdf. This paper concludes that the original work by Marshall and Sanow was more sound than the published criticisms of it. I quote part of the conclusions:

In regard to the above referenced work and opinions, those who’ve studied them in detail have arrived at this conclusion:

DocGKR and I--as well as many other learned persons with experience in scientific research--have independently spent hours and hours looking up Courtney's citations to be sure we're not missing something important, and we have independently come to the conclusion that his work is junk science at best.

Post #164 in of this thread http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=28142&page=9

Doc Williams (“DrJSW”) website: http://www.tacticalanatomy.com

Also:

Take the time to read the referenced articles--they do not support the claims of this paper.

Post #2 of this thread: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34407

 

[duns]

In regard to the above referenced work and opinions, those who’ve studied them in detail have arrived at this conclusion:

Post #164 in of this thread http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=28142&page=9

Doc Williams (“DrJSW”) website: http://www.tacticalanatomy.com

Also:

Post #2 of this thread: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34407

Shawn, I looked up those links. It seems that all the debate was over whether or not ballistic pressure wave effects are significant. That issue is not relevant in the context of my post. I was responding to the poster who had found some articles critical of the work of Marshall and Sanow. I referenced the Courtney & Courtney paper solely because of its Section V Exaggerated criticisms of the Marshall and Sanow “one shot stop” data set. This section of the paper demonstrates nicely IMO that the criticisms made of the M&S work were greatly exaggerated,

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I was responding to the poster who had found some articles critical of the work of Marshall and Sanow. I referenced the Courtney & Courtney paper solely because of its Section V Exaggerated criticisms of the Marshall and Sanow “one shot stop” data set. This section of the paper demonstrates nicely IMO that the criticisms made of the M&S work were greatly exaggerated,

Courtney & Courtney need "findings" support their junk science, which is why they defend M&S methodology. The paper you reference is merely a continuation of discredited junk science.

See - http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/sanow.pdf - for "exaggerated criticisms" from LEOs who discredit Sanow reports involving their agencies.

More "exaggerated criticism" from an LEO that disputes Sanow's account of a shooting involving his agency - http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs8.htm

Sanow is half of Marshall & Sanow.

Regardless, the data, if one wishes to believe they're uncorrupted, are obsolete are irrelevant.

 

[CDW4ME]

Shot timer is helpful

I shot the midsize Glocks 19 & 38 and a XD side by side.
My shot to shot times were about .46 sec. from 1st to 2nd shot whether I shot a Glock 19, 38 (45 GAP) or XD45 compact.
I put a 6'' stick on Shoot & See circle on the center of a B27 which I placed about 5-6 yards away. I only counted the time if both shots hit the circle.
I repeated the sequence for each pistol 3 times and recored the best 2 out of 3, then avaraged.
The 45 and the 9mm were essentially the same for speed of follow up shots.
If I can place 45 bullets as quickly on a 6'' circle as I can 9mm, that makes for an easy choice.

 

[duns]

Courtney & Courtney need "findings" support their junk science, which is why they defend M&S methodology. The paper you reference is merely a continuation of discredited junk science..

Not very high road to use terms like "junk science". Much better to present objective comments on the analysis with which you disagree and alternative data and/or analyses.

 

[markb]

The consensus is the 9mm is not acceptable as a defensive round due to its lack of stopping power. I will buy all Sig 229, Browning HP, HK USP in 9mm for $300.00 if in 99% condition or new.

 

[481]

Many loads in 40sw have more energy than 45acp, but both behave similarly in FBI protocol ballistics gelatin. I believe there are some 5.7mm loads more powerful, energy-wise, than hollow point 9mm loads, but the 9mm consistently displaces more tissue in ballistics gelatin than 5.7mm self defense loads.

I agree.

Your observation is borne out here:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19913

 

[speaksoftly]

The consensus is the 9mm is not acceptable as a defensive round due to its lack of stopping power. I will buy all Sig 229, Browning HP, HK USP in 9mm for $300.00 if in 99% condition or new.

NO NO NO!!! Don't sell to this guy! I'll pay $325 and they can be in 98% condition or new! ;-)

 

[FTSESQ]

I should shoot each and select the one that has the best combination of accuracy and control, since the actual effectiveness is roughly the same.

Um... Yeah! Next to having the gun go bang when needed, putting a round where it needs to go is paramount.

 

[FTSESQ]

The laws of physics are helpful here, inasmuch as we can say that a BB fired at 400 fps will carry more destructive power than a brick at 10.

No offense Newton... But a BB (5.1 grains) @ 400fps has 1.81 ft/lbs of energy. A brick (avg 4-6 lbs depending on size, composition, and moisture) @10fps has 6.22-9.33 ft/lbs of energy....
I'm just saying...