Curious about 9x18 stopping power.
- Thread starter wbond
- Start date
- Status
Bravo! At last a "stopping power" analysis that we can actually use, as opposed to that "one shot stop" deal (maybe)! Thank you, Duncan McPherson! You're a credit to Clan McPherson!
Conventional wisdom says that with handgun cartridges in the .32ACP and .380ACP range, you can pretty much count on multiple shots to incapacitate an attacker. So it's apparent from McPherson's study that at least 3 or 4 rounds from a .380, in particular, will achieve at least the "paper" result of 30-40 grams.
But, in my book, nothing replaces this: "In a defensive situation, be prepared to shoot and keep shooting until the threat is over." And this is regardless of what caliber you are using.
CAnnoneer
Member
wbond said:
Sorry, I did not know about your injuries.
In that case, why not get a harness machined, which attaches to your forearm? If you have it made like an archer's bracer, you should be able to absorb a lot of the recoil there instead of the wrist. A custom grip on the pistol can lock into the harness. Besides, the .380 kick less than 9mm, and 9mm kicks less than .357, .40, or .45. The harness can look like the ones in Alien Resurrection and Red Heat.
Being the oddball, I actually like the .380 and would not feel undergunned with it. I shot several hundred rounds through a Beretta Cheetah in that a few times at the range and it was deadly accurate. The major downside for me is the more expensive and harder to find ammo.
If all of that fails, maybe consider the FN5.7 ? I hear it has virtually no recoil, but the ammo is expensive.
NoScreenName
Member
RyanM said:
McCall911 said:
You are missing the importantance of the word CAPABLE... the bullet weights are capaable of that but due to the fact that .380's are loaded to deliver much milder speeds than say 9x18 I don't think they would live up to their potential and capability...
I'd take a 9x18 over a .380 anyday... even with as slight an edge as it has... I think the hotter russian loadings and fps speeds allow it to live up or at least approach it's capabilities moreso than .380...
I think it's accepted by most that multiple shots are generally required for immediate cessation of aggressive activities in most situations...
IMO the arguing over slight differences in "potential stopping power" of various calibers and decisions made thusly, are merely stemming from a place of laziness... There is no substitute, caliber-wise, that will make up for lack of or poor shooting skills, accuracy and/or tactics... there is no magic bullet... except for the JFK bullet...
The old adage, "fear a .22 in the hands of someone who knows how to use it over the .44 in the hands of someone who doesn't.." is 100% true... there is no band aid caliber that will make up for one's lack of ability and proficiency...
grendelbane
Member
I too have recently suffered a hand injury. Though I have recovered now, I can still remember the handgunning problems that I suffered.
While I liked the Mak that I owned, I thought its recoil was brisk even before I hurt my hand. Revolvers were out of the question, even dry firing several of my wheel guns was painful.
If I had not recovered, I would now be carrying a 9mm Gov't model clone. The only thing that full length guide rods are really good for is adding weight, so I would add one, preferably tungsten. There are lots of other little tricks for adding weight to a Gov't model.
No 9mm caliber handgun is going to be a great stopper. Or a 10mm, or even a 13mm, if they made one. However, the Gov't model is very accurate and easy to shoot. This would be my choice.
While I liked the Mak that I owned, I thought its recoil was brisk even before I hurt my hand. Revolvers were out of the question, even dry firing several of my wheel guns was painful.
If I had not recovered, I would now be carrying a 9mm Gov't model clone. The only thing that full length guide rods are really good for is adding weight, so I would add one, preferably tungsten. There are lots of other little tricks for adding weight to a Gov't model.
No 9mm caliber handgun is going to be a great stopper. Or a 10mm, or even a 13mm, if they made one. However, the Gov't model is very accurate and easy to shoot. This would be my choice.
Actually, the chances of those rounds crushing that amount of tissue is fairly likely. It's the incapacitation where the capable part comes into play, really. Anyone who's interested in wound ballistics should buy a copy of MacPherson's book, Bullet Penetration. It's written in very easy to understand language, and makes minimal use of jargon. And all the equations are there for calculating a real, tangible amount of tissue damage which one round will do compared to the next. http://www.firearmstactical.com/bulletpenetration.htm
MacPherson is a physicist and a literal rocket scientist. He wrote aerodynamics equations which were used in several successful rocket launches. So I have a lot of confidence in his equations.
MacPherson is a physicist and a literal rocket scientist. He wrote aerodynamics equations which were used in several successful rocket launches. So I have a lot of confidence in his equations.
Well...I fail to understand what I have failed to understand. But anyway...
I think it's likely that the 9 x 18 (9mm Makarov) should be considered in the same ballpark as the .380ACP for the simple reason that the velocities are practically similar (within 100 fps or so) and the bullet weights are similar (90 to about 100 grains.) And so the differences in performance/power, etc. are nothing to get overly excited about.
To split hairs just a bit, one point in favor of the .380ACP might be the slight advantage in penetration that this round might have compared the the 9mm Mak. Since bullet weights are similar, but the diameter of the .380 is ever so slightly smaller, then it has slightly greater sectional density and, hence, the capability of a miniscule amount of penetration over the 9mm Mak.
But I don't like splitting hairs, so I say: To each his own!
I think it's likely that the 9 x 18 (9mm Makarov) should be considered in the same ballpark as the .380ACP for the simple reason that the velocities are practically similar (within 100 fps or so) and the bullet weights are similar (90 to about 100 grains.) And so the differences in performance/power, etc. are nothing to get overly excited about.
To split hairs just a bit, one point in favor of the .380ACP might be the slight advantage in penetration that this round might have compared the the 9mm Mak. Since bullet weights are similar, but the diameter of the .380 is ever so slightly smaller, then it has slightly greater sectional density and, hence, the capability of a miniscule amount of penetration over the 9mm Mak.
But I don't like splitting hairs, so I say: To each his own!
Don't think so.
Don't think they're confused. I'm not an expert, but they seem to know their stuff. This is a Russian gun website.
See http://world.guns.ru
Then go to the English part of site. Then to the handguns part. Then to Czech Republic handguns. Then to CZ-82-83 section.
Read it yourself. It says that the CZ-82 and 83 are made to handle 20% more powerful 9x18 ammo than standard Soviet 9x18 ammo.
If you want to go straight to the CZ-82-83 section, then click here:
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg26-e.htm
As you can see, the Russian gun writer says CZ-82 and 83 were designed for 20% hotter 9x18 than standard Soviet 9x18 ammo. They also say that Czech ammo was traditionally 20% hotter than Soviet ammo in 9x18. Note they said "Soviet" not "Russian" ammo. What's the difference? Well "Soviet" means made under Soviet rule (old days). "Russian" means made in recent times and now.
i.e. - Soviet ammo means the old stuff the Soviets used to make. Russian ammo means the new stuff the Russians currently make. The Rusky gun writer is claiming that communist era Czech 9x18 ammo was 20% hotter than communist era 9x18 Soviet ammo. He's not saying the Czeck ammo today is hotter than Russian ammo today. He's saying that Czeck ammo then was 20% hotter than Soviet ammo then. The Makarov PM (traditional Makarov) and CZ-82 were designed then, not now. So this brings me back to my original conclusion: The CZ-82 was designed for 20% hotter ammo then the Makarov. The CZ-83 is the same gun or very similar as the 82.
I enterpet that as the stock (unaltered) CZ-82 and 83 are designed for 20% hotter ammo than a stock Makarov. Am I misunderstanding the implications of what the Russian gun writer is saying? Is he wrong?
This was supposedly written by a Rusky handgun expert at this Russian site. I'm not an expert on Makarovs or CZ-82s-83s, but I tend to think a Rusky gun website knows about 9x18 ammo and guns for it. We're talking "stock" guns. No changing of recoil springs or other customizations.
However, feel free to disagree and set me straight. I'm a novice to 9x18 myself and don't know anything other than what others tell me.
RyanM said:
Don't think they're confused. I'm not an expert, but they seem to know their stuff. This is a Russian gun website.
See http://world.guns.ru
Then go to the English part of site. Then to the handguns part. Then to Czech Republic handguns. Then to CZ-82-83 section.
Read it yourself. It says that the CZ-82 and 83 are made to handle 20% more powerful 9x18 ammo than standard Soviet 9x18 ammo.
If you want to go straight to the CZ-82-83 section, then click here:
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg26-e.htm
As you can see, the Russian gun writer says CZ-82 and 83 were designed for 20% hotter 9x18 than standard Soviet 9x18 ammo. They also say that Czech ammo was traditionally 20% hotter than Soviet ammo in 9x18. Note they said "Soviet" not "Russian" ammo. What's the difference? Well "Soviet" means made under Soviet rule (old days). "Russian" means made in recent times and now.
i.e. - Soviet ammo means the old stuff the Soviets used to make. Russian ammo means the new stuff the Russians currently make. The Rusky gun writer is claiming that communist era Czech 9x18 ammo was 20% hotter than communist era 9x18 Soviet ammo. He's not saying the Czeck ammo today is hotter than Russian ammo today. He's saying that Czeck ammo then was 20% hotter than Soviet ammo then. The Makarov PM (traditional Makarov) and CZ-82 were designed then, not now. So this brings me back to my original conclusion: The CZ-82 was designed for 20% hotter ammo then the Makarov. The CZ-83 is the same gun or very similar as the 82.
I enterpet that as the stock (unaltered) CZ-82 and 83 are designed for 20% hotter ammo than a stock Makarov. Am I misunderstanding the implications of what the Russian gun writer is saying? Is he wrong?
This was supposedly written by a Rusky handgun expert at this Russian site. I'm not an expert on Makarovs or CZ-82s-83s, but I tend to think a Rusky gun website knows about 9x18 ammo and guns for it. We're talking "stock" guns. No changing of recoil springs or other customizations.
However, feel free to disagree and set me straight. I'm a novice to 9x18 myself and don't know anything other than what others tell me.
Re: CZ82-83 made for 20% hotter ammo than Makarov
I'm not saying this myself. I'm a novice to 9x18. So what do I know?
This was told to me by a Russian gun website.
See http://world.guns.ru
Then go to the English part of site. Then to the handguns part. Then to Czech Republic handguns. Then to CZ-82-83 section.
Read it yourself. It says that the CZ-82 and 83 are made to handle 20% more powerful 9x18 ammo than standard Soviet 9x18 ammo.
i.e. - Soviet ammo means the old stuff the Soviets used to make. Russian ammo means the new stuff the Russians currently make. The Rusky gun writer is claiming that communist era Czech 9x18 ammo was 20% hotter than communist era 9x18 Soviet ammo. He's not saying the Czeck ammo today is hotter than Russian ammo today. He's saying that Czeck ammo then was 20% hotter than Soviet ammo then.
The Makarov PM (traditional Makarov) and CZ-82 were designed then, not now. So this brings me back to my original conclusion: The CZ-82 was made for 20% hotter ammo then the Makarov.
I enterpet that as the stock (unaltered) CZ-82 and 83 are made for 20% hotter ammo than a stock Makarov. I'm basing this on the ammo made back then, not ammo made today. These guns were both designed back then. Am I misunderstanding the implications of what the Russian gun writer is saying? Is he wrong?
If you want to go straight to the Russian gun writer's CZ-82-83 section, then click here:
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg26-e.htm
As you can see, they say CZ-82 and 83 are made for 20% hotter 9x18 than standard Soviet 9x18 ammo. They also say that Czech ammo was traditionally 20% hotter than Soviet ammo in 9x18.
I enterpet that as the stock (unaltered) CZ-82 and 83 are designed for 20% hotter ammo than a stock Makarov. We're talking "stock" guns. No changing of recoil springs or other customizations. Am I misunderstanding?
I'm getting this from the Russian gun writer at this Russian gun website, and this is my interpetation of what he says. However, feel free to disagree and set me straight. I'm a novice to 9x18 myself and don't know anything other than what others tell me. That's why I started this topic. I want to learn.
Thanks from wbond, the recoil sensitive guy who likes CZ-83s in .32, .380, and soon 9x18, if I can handle it.
I'm not saying this myself. I'm a novice to 9x18. So what do I know?
This was told to me by a Russian gun website.
See http://world.guns.ru
Then go to the English part of site. Then to the handguns part. Then to Czech Republic handguns. Then to CZ-82-83 section.
Read it yourself. It says that the CZ-82 and 83 are made to handle 20% more powerful 9x18 ammo than standard Soviet 9x18 ammo.
i.e. - Soviet ammo means the old stuff the Soviets used to make. Russian ammo means the new stuff the Russians currently make. The Rusky gun writer is claiming that communist era Czech 9x18 ammo was 20% hotter than communist era 9x18 Soviet ammo. He's not saying the Czeck ammo today is hotter than Russian ammo today. He's saying that Czeck ammo then was 20% hotter than Soviet ammo then.
The Makarov PM (traditional Makarov) and CZ-82 were designed then, not now. So this brings me back to my original conclusion: The CZ-82 was made for 20% hotter ammo then the Makarov.
I enterpet that as the stock (unaltered) CZ-82 and 83 are made for 20% hotter ammo than a stock Makarov. I'm basing this on the ammo made back then, not ammo made today. These guns were both designed back then. Am I misunderstanding the implications of what the Russian gun writer is saying? Is he wrong?
If you want to go straight to the Russian gun writer's CZ-82-83 section, then click here:
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg26-e.htm
As you can see, they say CZ-82 and 83 are made for 20% hotter 9x18 than standard Soviet 9x18 ammo. They also say that Czech ammo was traditionally 20% hotter than Soviet ammo in 9x18.
I enterpet that as the stock (unaltered) CZ-82 and 83 are designed for 20% hotter ammo than a stock Makarov. We're talking "stock" guns. No changing of recoil springs or other customizations. Am I misunderstanding?
I'm getting this from the Russian gun writer at this Russian gun website, and this is my interpetation of what he says. However, feel free to disagree and set me straight. I'm a novice to 9x18 myself and don't know anything other than what others tell me. That's why I started this topic. I want to learn.
Thanks from wbond, the recoil sensitive guy who likes CZ-83s in .32, .380, and soon 9x18, if I can handle it.
thepanda
Member
I'll admit that I didn't read much of this post; I had to stop after reading one of the first statements in the first post. I believe the author of the statement was saying that a .32 ACP cartridge has "3 shot stop power" because it's "shot stop capability" was around 40% and this multiplied by 3 was well over 100%.
First of all, I have no idea where these "facts" are from our how they could possibly be accurately measured when one considers the number of variables involved and the ethics of shooting other people for statistical purposes.
Second, the author's statistical reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Let us say that "shot stop capability" is an accurate measurement and the cartridge stops threats 40% of the time with one round. You cannot simply multiply this percentage by 3 to get 120%, which is over 100%, and assume the threat has been stopped. Using this same logic you could say that each individual round has a 60% chance of not stopping the threat, which multiplied by 2 equals 120% and therefore you could not possibly stop a threat with 2 rounds. Using this logic your odds of stopping the target would be 60% worse each time you fired! Obviously, using statistics in this manner does not work. Statistically, each bullet acts independently of the round before it. Each time the trigger is pulled and a round is fired, and assuming the "shot stop capability" is accurate, the round has a 40% chance of stopping the threat. It doesn't matter if you fire one or one hundred rounds, each round has a 40% chance of stopping the threat. Now, statistically, your odds of perpetually falling within that 60% range that does not stop the threat decreases the more you fire, but one cannot calculate these odds with simple multiplication.
Also, the concept of "shot stop capability" seems ridiculous to me. The ability of a round to stop a threat is GREATLY influenced on point of impact, age of threat, health of threat, windage, elevation, clothing, type of drugs the assailant is using, and millions of other variables. The simple fact that the threat is moving toward the shooter influences the effectiveness of each round by both creating an additional opposite force in the collision and reducing flight time of the projectile. Additionally, each shot that hits the threat changes the target's surface area and acceleration. Needless to say, an accurate "shot stop capability" would be difficult, if not impossible, to measure even if it weren't unethical to practice shooting people.
Anyway, my rant is over. Maybe it was a bit much considering I'm new around here and new to firearms in general, but I'm not new to statistics and physics. I just thought this information was worth clarifying. Happy reading!
First of all, I have no idea where these "facts" are from our how they could possibly be accurately measured when one considers the number of variables involved and the ethics of shooting other people for statistical purposes.
Second, the author's statistical reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Let us say that "shot stop capability" is an accurate measurement and the cartridge stops threats 40% of the time with one round. You cannot simply multiply this percentage by 3 to get 120%, which is over 100%, and assume the threat has been stopped. Using this same logic you could say that each individual round has a 60% chance of not stopping the threat, which multiplied by 2 equals 120% and therefore you could not possibly stop a threat with 2 rounds. Using this logic your odds of stopping the target would be 60% worse each time you fired! Obviously, using statistics in this manner does not work. Statistically, each bullet acts independently of the round before it. Each time the trigger is pulled and a round is fired, and assuming the "shot stop capability" is accurate, the round has a 40% chance of stopping the threat. It doesn't matter if you fire one or one hundred rounds, each round has a 40% chance of stopping the threat. Now, statistically, your odds of perpetually falling within that 60% range that does not stop the threat decreases the more you fire, but one cannot calculate these odds with simple multiplication.
Also, the concept of "shot stop capability" seems ridiculous to me. The ability of a round to stop a threat is GREATLY influenced on point of impact, age of threat, health of threat, windage, elevation, clothing, type of drugs the assailant is using, and millions of other variables. The simple fact that the threat is moving toward the shooter influences the effectiveness of each round by both creating an additional opposite force in the collision and reducing flight time of the projectile. Additionally, each shot that hits the threat changes the target's surface area and acceleration. Needless to say, an accurate "shot stop capability" would be difficult, if not impossible, to measure even if it weren't unethical to practice shooting people.
Anyway, my rant is over. Maybe it was a bit much considering I'm new around here and new to firearms in general, but I'm not new to statistics and physics. I just thought this information was worth clarifying. Happy reading!
.380 vs 9x18
Very interesting. With all respect, I'm no expert, but I think the 9x18 is much better than the .380, if my hand can take the Silver Bear 115 gr ammo. If I have to stay with 95 gr ammo, then the 9x18 is a little better, but with enough advantage to still want 9x18.
My philosophy is that the .380 is borderline. So any extra the 9x18 can provide might be just enough extra.
It's like when you're stuck in snow and your compact car weighs 3,500 lbs, but a push from a person can sometimes get you unstuck. A 175 lb person whose feet are on snow can't push more than 70 or 80 lbs max, yet this often gets you unstuck because you were on the borderline of being stuck. It only takes a little force to get you over the borderline. In the stuck car example, a 2% increase in force is enough to get it done.
In the same way, the little extra offered by the 9x18 might be just enough, especially since most experts say the .380 is borderline. Unless of course I can use the 115 Silver Bears, which are a lot extra. Don't know if my hand will tolerate the Silver Bears or not, but 95 gr sounds like a good alternative.
In the stuck car example, a 2% increase in force is enough to get the car moving. Based on momentum, the standard 9x18 loads are 15% more powerful than standard .380 loads. The strongest 9x18 load (Silver Bear) is 16% stronger than a +P .380. To me, that's substantial. This is based on momentum (Mass X Velocity). If you look at Energy (Mass X Velocity^2), then the 9x18 has a large advantage over the .380.
The only question is, is it a substantial advantage (momentum) or a large advantage (energy)? I'm going to assume that both momentum and energy are important. If so, the 9x18 advantage is medium. Anything, even a little, helps when you're on the borderline. The 9x18 advantage is more than a little, in my opinion it could certainly get you on the good side of borderline.
Sure, I might need a 2nd or 3rd shot, but with every shot the advantage multiplies.
As for penetration, I find it hard to believe that a 90 gr .380 can penetrate anywhere near a 115 gr 9x18. The difference in bullet diameter is not substantial IMO because it's way less than 1% difference. Certainly a trivial diameter difference compared to the bullet weight difference.
Therefore, I believe the 9x18 would have more penetration with the 115 gr Siver Bear, and more expansion too. A 95 gr 9x18 might not have any better penetration than a .380 90 gr, maybe less due to the higher velocity of the 9x18. So the advantage of the 95 gr 9x18 is questionable with regard to penetration. The 9x18 95 gr might even have a disadvantage here. However, the 115 gr Silver Bear would almost certainly penetrate more than any hollow point .380.
I know I'm a novice to 9x18 and .380 too, but I do understand ballistics to a point. The above is just my opinion. My shooting experience is oldy, moldy, but ballistic concepts don't change that much. My big adjustment is learning to live with cartridges weaker than .40 S&W.
Why doesn't someone run an actual test in Gelitan or water jugs to see how the .380 really compares to the 9x18 in both 9x18 95 gr and 115 gr defense loads. Then, instead of theorizing (however much fun that is) we can see it. Don't forget to put denim or leather (to simulate a coat-jacket) over the gelitan or water jugs.
To bad we can't repeat the goat tests, but that would be illegal in my state and drive animal lovers to protest and insanity. In Europe, they tested handgun stopping power by shooting large 150 lb goats through lungs, intentionally missing heart. Then timed how long they took to fall over. Great tests. Bad publicity. Don't forget to put a denim jacket on the goats. ;-)
Very interesting. With all respect, I'm no expert, but I think the 9x18 is much better than the .380, if my hand can take the Silver Bear 115 gr ammo. If I have to stay with 95 gr ammo, then the 9x18 is a little better, but with enough advantage to still want 9x18.
My philosophy is that the .380 is borderline. So any extra the 9x18 can provide might be just enough extra.
It's like when you're stuck in snow and your compact car weighs 3,500 lbs, but a push from a person can sometimes get you unstuck. A 175 lb person whose feet are on snow can't push more than 70 or 80 lbs max, yet this often gets you unstuck because you were on the borderline of being stuck. It only takes a little force to get you over the borderline. In the stuck car example, a 2% increase in force is enough to get it done.
In the same way, the little extra offered by the 9x18 might be just enough, especially since most experts say the .380 is borderline. Unless of course I can use the 115 Silver Bears, which are a lot extra. Don't know if my hand will tolerate the Silver Bears or not, but 95 gr sounds like a good alternative.
In the stuck car example, a 2% increase in force is enough to get the car moving. Based on momentum, the standard 9x18 loads are 15% more powerful than standard .380 loads. The strongest 9x18 load (Silver Bear) is 16% stronger than a +P .380. To me, that's substantial. This is based on momentum (Mass X Velocity). If you look at Energy (Mass X Velocity^2), then the 9x18 has a large advantage over the .380.
The only question is, is it a substantial advantage (momentum) or a large advantage (energy)? I'm going to assume that both momentum and energy are important. If so, the 9x18 advantage is medium. Anything, even a little, helps when you're on the borderline. The 9x18 advantage is more than a little, in my opinion it could certainly get you on the good side of borderline.
Sure, I might need a 2nd or 3rd shot, but with every shot the advantage multiplies.
As for penetration, I find it hard to believe that a 90 gr .380 can penetrate anywhere near a 115 gr 9x18. The difference in bullet diameter is not substantial IMO because it's way less than 1% difference. Certainly a trivial diameter difference compared to the bullet weight difference.
Therefore, I believe the 9x18 would have more penetration with the 115 gr Siver Bear, and more expansion too. A 95 gr 9x18 might not have any better penetration than a .380 90 gr, maybe less due to the higher velocity of the 9x18. So the advantage of the 95 gr 9x18 is questionable with regard to penetration. The 9x18 95 gr might even have a disadvantage here. However, the 115 gr Silver Bear would almost certainly penetrate more than any hollow point .380.
I know I'm a novice to 9x18 and .380 too, but I do understand ballistics to a point. The above is just my opinion. My shooting experience is oldy, moldy, but ballistic concepts don't change that much. My big adjustment is learning to live with cartridges weaker than .40 S&W.
Why doesn't someone run an actual test in Gelitan or water jugs to see how the .380 really compares to the 9x18 in both 9x18 95 gr and 115 gr defense loads. Then, instead of theorizing (however much fun that is) we can see it. Don't forget to put denim or leather (to simulate a coat-jacket) over the gelitan or water jugs.
To bad we can't repeat the goat tests, but that would be illegal in my state and drive animal lovers to protest and insanity. In Europe, they tested handgun stopping power by shooting large 150 lb goats through lungs, intentionally missing heart. Then timed how long they took to fall over. Great tests. Bad publicity. Don't forget to put a denim jacket on the goats. ;-)
Calm down. We're just having a discussion here.
To ThePanda:
You're right about one thing. You're way over the top. You can express your opinion without making it insulting.
While it is not ethical to shoot people, and possibly not goats either, this was tested on goats in Europe. I never suggested shooting people for tests, nor goats either, but it's been done to goats. It's also been done to cattle in slaughter houses. Read Ayoob's book(s). I don't think steers tell us much about people though.
You are correct that "one shot stopping power" can't simply be multiplied by the number of shots to get an accurate number. It doesn't need to be accurate. If it's way over 100% that's good enough for me. If you don't like it, then figure it some other way, or don't figure it.
You are entirely mistaken in several areas. Most notably your comment that each preceding shot has no affect on the outcome of following shots. Clearly, getting shot multiple times is more physically tramatic than once. Anyone knows that.
Each shot takes a toll, even if it doesn't incapacitate by itself. This adds up. Use your common sense. No, maybe we can't put an accurate number to it, but it certainly adds up. Maybe we don't know exactly what it adds up to statistically, but we know it adds up to something larger than one shot by itself. That's common sense. I've also learned this by observation and experience as I'll explain below.
I won't even address your comment about each shot being LESS likely to stop an attacker than the preceding shots. That isn't even worth my time.
As for your statement that a 40% one shot stop possibility would always be 40% for each shot fired, no matter how many shots fired... Let me politely point out that if you get punched in the nose 3 times, it's more likely to put you down than once punch. Maybe not 3 times more likely, or maybe more than 3 times. I don't know. But certainly injuries add up. Same with bullets.
My grandfather used to poach deer with a .22 Magnum semi-auto. He said 3 quick shots always dropped them. I doubt one shot would have. He proved a .22 Magnum is a consistant 3 shot stopper on deer. Here is an interesting parallel. One chest shot with a .22 Mag would not likely put down a deer, but 3 always did over many years of poaching. What does this suggest? Could it suggest that three shots on target is more damaging than one? Mmm. Let's think about that.
I can tell you in detail about shooting possums with a .22 long rifle. No amount of shots would keep them from running off when using round nose bullets. With round nose I could only get about 5 or 7 in them before they'd run off. However, with hot loaded hollow points (stingers or yellow jackets) three chest shots would do it with fair consistency. Sometimes a 4th shot would be needed. Clearly one shot was not enough, but 3 or 4 was with hollow points. Multiple shots add up.
Statistically you can't simply multiply "one shot stop percentage" by number of shots to get an accurate total number. You are right about that. So what? It's a best guess. The best guess I can make without shooting goats multiple times. Hey, that's a good idea. Thanks.
No, I'm not really going to start shooting goats, but I really did take out those possums with a .22 and once with a bow and target arrows. Both required multiple shots
When "one shot stop percentage" is multiplied by number of shots, maybe it's really greater than the total, maybe less, maybe equal. No one knows. It's a guess. In my experience hunting possums, I found 3 shots is 3 times as damaging as one, if each shot gets enough penetration. That's the big "if".
If penetration not adequate, then no amount of shots will do it. If expansion is not adequate, then a lot of shots will do it, but I mean A LOT (more than 5). If penetration and/or expansion are borderline (almost decent), like a stinger .22 on a possum, then I have observed 3 shots to be approx 3 times as good as 1. With round nose .22 bullets, it took 10 shots or more, if I could corner them. Usually with round nose they'd get away because I wasn't fast enough to get more than 3-5 shots in them. That's why I stopped using round nose.
My feeling is this, a severely inadequate cartridge is still severely inadequate until you get about 10 well placed shots. By then an attacker could be carving his initials in your chest with a knife. However, a borderline cartridge (like .380) is probably enough with 2 or 3 shots. 9x18 has just enough edge over .380 that I think 2 shots would likely do it. A 3rd shot is still an option.
Of course the above only applies to an insane or enraged attacker. No sane person would charge any handgun, especially if they were already shot once. Any sane person would be stopped or running the other way. I think most attackers are sane and even the sight of a handgun will deter most. For a sane attacker, the mere sight of a gun would have stopping power.
By the way, that's why I like shiny nickel guns or stainless for day time carry. Besides being prettier, they look scarier to bad guys. At least I read that somewhere. Makes sense to me that a flashier gun attracts more attention, which MIGHT be more intimidating, which MIGHT make it unnecessary to fire a shot. For night carry, I prefer matte black or blue because I think stealth more important at night.
To ThePanda:
You're right about one thing. You're way over the top. You can express your opinion without making it insulting.
While it is not ethical to shoot people, and possibly not goats either, this was tested on goats in Europe. I never suggested shooting people for tests, nor goats either, but it's been done to goats. It's also been done to cattle in slaughter houses. Read Ayoob's book(s). I don't think steers tell us much about people though.
You are correct that "one shot stopping power" can't simply be multiplied by the number of shots to get an accurate number. It doesn't need to be accurate. If it's way over 100% that's good enough for me. If you don't like it, then figure it some other way, or don't figure it.
You are entirely mistaken in several areas. Most notably your comment that each preceding shot has no affect on the outcome of following shots. Clearly, getting shot multiple times is more physically tramatic than once. Anyone knows that.
Each shot takes a toll, even if it doesn't incapacitate by itself. This adds up. Use your common sense. No, maybe we can't put an accurate number to it, but it certainly adds up. Maybe we don't know exactly what it adds up to statistically, but we know it adds up to something larger than one shot by itself. That's common sense. I've also learned this by observation and experience as I'll explain below.
I won't even address your comment about each shot being LESS likely to stop an attacker than the preceding shots. That isn't even worth my time.
As for your statement that a 40% one shot stop possibility would always be 40% for each shot fired, no matter how many shots fired... Let me politely point out that if you get punched in the nose 3 times, it's more likely to put you down than once punch. Maybe not 3 times more likely, or maybe more than 3 times. I don't know. But certainly injuries add up. Same with bullets.
My grandfather used to poach deer with a .22 Magnum semi-auto. He said 3 quick shots always dropped them. I doubt one shot would have. He proved a .22 Magnum is a consistant 3 shot stopper on deer. Here is an interesting parallel. One chest shot with a .22 Mag would not likely put down a deer, but 3 always did over many years of poaching. What does this suggest? Could it suggest that three shots on target is more damaging than one? Mmm. Let's think about that.
I can tell you in detail about shooting possums with a .22 long rifle. No amount of shots would keep them from running off when using round nose bullets. With round nose I could only get about 5 or 7 in them before they'd run off. However, with hot loaded hollow points (stingers or yellow jackets) three chest shots would do it with fair consistency. Sometimes a 4th shot would be needed. Clearly one shot was not enough, but 3 or 4 was with hollow points. Multiple shots add up.
Statistically you can't simply multiply "one shot stop percentage" by number of shots to get an accurate total number. You are right about that. So what? It's a best guess. The best guess I can make without shooting goats multiple times. Hey, that's a good idea. Thanks.
No, I'm not really going to start shooting goats, but I really did take out those possums with a .22 and once with a bow and target arrows. Both required multiple shots
When "one shot stop percentage" is multiplied by number of shots, maybe it's really greater than the total, maybe less, maybe equal. No one knows. It's a guess. In my experience hunting possums, I found 3 shots is 3 times as damaging as one, if each shot gets enough penetration. That's the big "if".
If penetration not adequate, then no amount of shots will do it. If expansion is not adequate, then a lot of shots will do it, but I mean A LOT (more than 5). If penetration and/or expansion are borderline (almost decent), like a stinger .22 on a possum, then I have observed 3 shots to be approx 3 times as good as 1. With round nose .22 bullets, it took 10 shots or more, if I could corner them. Usually with round nose they'd get away because I wasn't fast enough to get more than 3-5 shots in them. That's why I stopped using round nose.
My feeling is this, a severely inadequate cartridge is still severely inadequate until you get about 10 well placed shots. By then an attacker could be carving his initials in your chest with a knife. However, a borderline cartridge (like .380) is probably enough with 2 or 3 shots. 9x18 has just enough edge over .380 that I think 2 shots would likely do it. A 3rd shot is still an option.
Of course the above only applies to an insane or enraged attacker. No sane person would charge any handgun, especially if they were already shot once. Any sane person would be stopped or running the other way. I think most attackers are sane and even the sight of a handgun will deter most. For a sane attacker, the mere sight of a gun would have stopping power.
By the way, that's why I like shiny nickel guns or stainless for day time carry. Besides being prettier, they look scarier to bad guys. At least I read that somewhere. Makes sense to me that a flashier gun attracts more attention, which MIGHT be more intimidating, which MIGHT make it unnecessary to fire a shot. For night carry, I prefer matte black or blue because I think stealth more important at night.
thepanda said:I'll admit that I didn't read much of this post; I had to stop after reading one of the first statements in the first post. I believe the author of the statement was saying that a .32 ACP cartridge has "3 shot stop power" because it's "shot stop capability" was around 40% and this multiplied by 3 was well over 100%.
First of all, I have no idea where these "facts" are from our how they could possibly be accurately measured when one considers the number of variables involved and the ethics of shooting other people for statistical purposes.
Second, the author's statistical reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Let us say that "shot stop capability" is an accurate measurement and the cartridge stops threats 40% of the time with one round. You cannot simply multiply this percentage by 3 to get 120%, which is over 100%, and assume the threat has been stopped. Using this same logic you could say that each individual round has a 60% chance of not stopping the threat, which multiplied by 2 equals 120% and therefore you could not possibly stop a threat with 2 rounds. Using this logic your odds of stopping the target would be 60% worse each time you fired! Obviously, using statistics in this manner does not work. Statistically, each bullet acts independently of the round before it. Each time the trigger is pulled and a round is fired, and assuming the "shot stop capability" is accurate, the round has a 40% chance of stopping the threat. It doesn't matter if you fire one or one hundred rounds, each round has a 40% chance of stopping the threat. Now, statistically, your odds of perpetually falling within that 60% range that does not stop the threat decreases the more you fire, but one cannot calculate these odds with simple multiplication.
Also, the concept of "shot stop capability" seems ridiculous to me. The ability of a round to stop a threat is GREATLY influenced on point of impact, age of threat, health of threat, windage, elevation, clothing, type of drugs the assailant is using, and millions of other variables. The simple fact that the threat is moving toward the shooter influences the effectiveness of each round by both creating an additional opposite force in the collision and reducing flight time of the projectile. Additionally, each shot that hits the threat changes the target's surface area and acceleration. Needless to say, an accurate "shot stop capability" would be difficult, if not impossible, to measure even if it weren't unethical to practice shooting people.
Anyway, my rant is over. Maybe it was a bit much considering I'm new around here and new to firearms in general, but I'm not new to statistics and physics. I just thought this information was worth clarifying. Happy reading!
Last edited:
Mad Chemist
Member
All things being equal, a delayed blowback 9mm will have less felt recoil than a straight blowback Mak or .380 while delivering a hotter round. Don't get me wrong I'm not a Makrov hater, but if you are recoil sensitive then you should consider this.wbond said:
Wbond, the math tools used for ballistic calculations are much more complex than simple arithmetic. 9x18 is marginal for SD but still effective. However, you will get a cheaper better performing round with less felt recoil if you choose a std. mass-delayed blowback 9mm. Generally .380 and mak have been chosen for concealment, they can be carried very discreetly.
JH
Mad Chemist
Member
Why so thin skinned? Panda's post wasn't a personal attack. The post was a refutation of some rather suspect stats and specious links within your reasoning.
For endless piles of data relevant to this thread use the search function. There are many makarov shooters on this site and you can get some excellent advice on models, ammo, parts, holsters, etc.
The search function is your friend.
JH
For endless piles of data relevant to this thread use the search function. There are many makarov shooters on this site and you can get some excellent advice on models, ammo, parts, holsters, etc.
The search function is your friend.
JH
I would not beleive anything I read without a chronograph.
Irregardless of who manufactured it when your supposition is that Czech ammo is hotter and the guns were made to handle it.
Let's assume for the moment that this is true.
Let's also assume that it's FMJ and not hollowpoints (which is likely).
Where does one GET this ammo for testing? How does it compare to SAAMI spec for the 9x18 Mak in a side byside comparison. Because given the VERY limited case capacity of the 9x18 I very seriously doubt you are going to get 20% 'hotter' without being very close to blowing the magazine out of the bottom of the gun due to an unsupported chamber.
Trying to recreate those numbers in BRASS cases (most warsaw pact fodder is steel cased) is likely a recipie for a blown up gun and missing fingers.
Is the .380/9mm Mak good enough for defensive work? Of course... but no matter how you stack it a Mak isn't a 9mm Parabellum, and FMJ isn't a quality hollowpoint.
Irregardless of who manufactured it when your supposition is that Czech ammo is hotter and the guns were made to handle it.
Let's assume for the moment that this is true.
Let's also assume that it's FMJ and not hollowpoints (which is likely).
Where does one GET this ammo for testing? How does it compare to SAAMI spec for the 9x18 Mak in a side byside comparison. Because given the VERY limited case capacity of the 9x18 I very seriously doubt you are going to get 20% 'hotter' without being very close to blowing the magazine out of the bottom of the gun due to an unsupported chamber.
Trying to recreate those numbers in BRASS cases (most warsaw pact fodder is steel cased) is likely a recipie for a blown up gun and missing fingers.
Is the .380/9mm Mak good enough for defensive work? Of course... but no matter how you stack it a Mak isn't a 9mm Parabellum, and FMJ isn't a quality hollowpoint.
wbond said:
Looks like you've really done your 9x18 homework, wbond!
As for me, I was just using what I saw on that table and drew the conclusion that the two rounds had similar performance. For all I know, comparing the 9x18 to the .380 may be like comparing the .380 to the .32ACP: Commonsense seems to dictate that the .380 has more wounding potential (a.k.a. "stopping power") than the .32.
NoScreenName
Member
McCall911 said:
I didn't mean to insinuate that you were failing to understand... not by any means...
I was merely suggesting taking it in as only one piece of the larger puzzle... I remember the days when everybody lived by marshall and sanow's OSS statistics...
SOme very interesting facts and formulas have been presented in this thread... thank you to all...
but they all seem a bit too scientifically oriented for me because there is simply an element of unpredictibility in the varibles... things that are impossible to factor in...
Real life shows us that certain events just do not happen like they should or liek they have been predicted...
Bah... I suppose it all boils down to which caliber/round performance guru or methodology you choose to buy into... but I still emphasize that even if it is a perceived advantage that does nothing else but boost your confidence in your choice, while not taken too far and with reverence... it might be a good thing...but even one step over that fine line and providing false confidence in your ability... is one of the worst things in the world...
Spending all your time finding the best uber bullet in the world while someone else is training their ass off with their "adequate" bullet design is sort of pointless IMO...
I've yet to try the 115gr silver bears... but I have a case headed my way as I write this... along with 19 & 21 lb recoil springs... and I'm very curious myself to see if the perceived recoil is any greater... I have a strong try it out for yourself philosophy since the olden days when the father figure types in my life told me tha .45ACP would knock me on my ass, being a 13yo kid and all... so I avoided it for many years and stuck with 9mm & 40S&W and when I finally shot it I wondered what all the hoopla was about, actually preferring it to .40... more of a shove than the snap of .40...
I had also heard the same thing about 9x18... that "manly men" didn't like the recoil and it was a bit much... once again I was surprised after I tried it for myself...
IMO... if you can handle hotter russian loads like Barnaul and Wolf... the 115gr Silver Bears shouldn't be that much of a difference... but we will see I spose... I'm going to try it with the stock 17lb spring first... with bakelite grips too... OMG...
If the Barny or RAM or Tiger stuff is a bit too hot or snappy then hell... I'd even try the damn 95 grain Hornady XTP in 9x18 since it seems to be loaded comparably to alot of .380 loads...
I'm just a big hippocrit anyways... when it comes to the caliber discussions... I'd rather be all about the practice...
okay gentlemen... back to teh physics discussion... Gonna go out for a little winter morn pre dawn shoot...
Nah, I didn't take your reply as an insult to my intelligence, NoScreenName. That's how come I made my own facetious reply. But anyway...I don't exhibit enough intelligence for anyone to insult anyway.
Thinking about all the stuff we've been hearing about "stopping power" over the years, I'm reminded of that scene in Jurassic Park where Jeff Goldblum's character is explaining "chaos theory." Is the water going to trickle to the right, to the left. Or is it going to stay there?
I think trying to quantify "stopping power" is pretty similar.
Hmmm. I'm not so sure that going for a "face" shot first is the best possible idea. Certainly - much better chance of stopping the perp quickly if you connect. But ... the head moves a lot more than COM while the fan is being hit. Much lower odds target.azrael said:
The other problem with the face is you go from "extremely vital" to "extremely nonvital" very quickly, while the torso is more of a continuum. Anyone catch that thread awhile back with the guy that got his face bitten off by a bear? That guy was missing a sizeable portion of his head, but it didn't kill him. Take that big of a chunk out of anywhere on someone's chest, and they'll be dead pretty quick.
On the one shot stop data, 99% of people that make a living doing statistics (our own Michael Courtney seems to be the sole exception) say that the Marshall/Sanow one-shot stop data is either fabricated, or has been manipulated to the point that it's almost outright false.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm
Plus the "fuller index" is pretty nonsensical.
0.0057 * energy / frontal area + 61.5
A 1/10th inch wide, 31 grain steel nail at 1000 fps has a 111% chance of a one shot stop. I guess we should stop bothering with these "bullet" things and start doing some R&D on hypervelocity nailguns instead?
On the one shot stop data, 99% of people that make a living doing statistics (our own Michael Courtney seems to be the sole exception) say that the Marshall/Sanow one-shot stop data is either fabricated, or has been manipulated to the point that it's almost outright false.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm
Plus the "fuller index" is pretty nonsensical.
0.0057 * energy / frontal area + 61.5
A 1/10th inch wide, 31 grain steel nail at 1000 fps has a 111% chance of a one shot stop. I guess we should stop bothering with these "bullet" things and start doing some R&D on hypervelocity nailguns instead?
wbond, I personally believe the 9x18 is only marginally better than 380acp, and any advantage you could gain by greater "stopping power" of the 9x18 could be more than offset by a higher volume of practice with the lower recoiling 380acp. That said, I have a few recommendations.
1) Magna-Porting
2) Beretta M86. Not currently in production, but has a 4.6" tip up barrel. Longer barrel for optimum velocity.
3) Taurus PT938. Never been able to confirm this, but it is supposed to be a Locked Breech semi-auto. Locked Breech reduces recoil.
1) Magna-Porting
2) Beretta M86. Not currently in production, but has a 4.6" tip up barrel. Longer barrel for optimum velocity.
3) Taurus PT938. Never been able to confirm this, but it is supposed to be a Locked Breech semi-auto. Locked Breech reduces recoil.
Northslope Nimrod
Member
9mm hits bad guy
9X18 hits bad guy
Bad guy can't tell the diff.
9X18 hits bad guy
Bad guy can't tell the diff.
- Status