Defining stopping power (Michael Courtney's thread)

[Yooper]

I think it is a big mistake to underestimate the power of adreniline, especially if it is enhanced with some type of chemical substance. All we can do if confronted by an antagonist is to propel a projectile, hopefully with some degree of proficiency, in the antagonist's direction. What happens after the bullet leaves the barrel is entirely out of our hands. It is now up to the antagonist to "stop" the bullet. There may well be as many reactions to being shot as there are antagonists and it is impossible to quantify reactions, the range of values is too great.

 

[Preacherman]

Michael, you have my support and my respect for your efforts to study the effect of bullet design, and to improve that design. We can all make very good use of such research. However, I'm afraid I must continue to disagree with you that this study relates to "stopping power" as such. I don't believe that such an animal exists, and I think that to strive to predict "stopping power" is to pursue a chimera. Also, your comments about timing, and statements such as

proper self-defense training should have the gun drawn prior to contact

don't really help much... sometimes one has no warning whatsoever about the attack, and can't prepare for it.

Let me illustrate this latter point from my own experience - an incident which also produced an instant one-shot stop, but purely by accident!

I was attacked from behind while walking down a street, by a knife-wielding thug. He came up behind me with no warning whatsoever. The first thing I knew about the attack was his knife penetrating my back! Very fortunately for me, he stabbed me alongside the spine, and the point of his knife caught in one of the "wings" of my lower vertebrae - otherwise I wouldn't be here telling you about it. I still have a nice scar on my lower back to remind me.

I arched my back forward, involuntarily, as I was stabbed. I was in Condition Yellow (aware of possible danger, but nothing specific), as I try to be at all times when armed and on the streets. I drew my weapon (a CZ75) partly out of my IWB holster, and fired backward, through the holster and the seat of my pants, in a desperate attempt to prevent another stab from hurting me again. (This gave me a marvellous flash-burn on my right buttock, leading to all sorts of hilarity at the emergency room later! )

My loads that day (being young and stupid) were my own handloads. I'd taken the Speer 88gr. JHP, designed for the .380 ACP, and handloaded it in 9mm. cases with a large helping of powder, giving a muzzle velocity of something like 1,500 fps. I was (at the time) inexperienced in bullet performance, and had assumed that this velocity would guarantee expansion and make a serious wound. Well, I hadn't allowed for the fact that the Speer bullet was designed for .380 ACP velocities, not the much higher 9mm. velocity (probably well over 50% greater than it was designed for). So, when the bullet hit flesh, it immediately "blew up" into tiny fragments, and didn't penetrate more than an inch or so. Very fortunately for me, the first piece of flesh it hit was my attacker's left testicle... which was effectively shredded, even "vaporized", by the impact. This doubled him over on the spot, squealing like a slaughtered pig, and did indeed produce a "one-shot stop", despite the completely inadequate bullet performance and lack of aim!

I guess we could rate my carry load at the time as "100% effective at one-shot stops" on the basis of that one incident - but that would be a completely fallacious interpretation. It saved my butt by accident, not by design! I was incredibly fortunate to hit my attacker at all with a completely unsighted, unaimed shot. I was even more fortunate not to hit some innocent pedestrian - there were many people on the street at the time. (I was not very well trained then... ) I never again carried ultra-light-for-caliber bullets at extreme velocities, having learned my lesson. I also, over time, came to trust larger calibers more than small ones, as my "database of experience" grew - that's why I don't trust the 9mm. or .38 Special to be more than marginally efficient as "stoppers".

 

[NineseveN]

Think outside of the box.

Do you mean to assert that 150 grains of high explosive fused to explode at a penetration distance of 6" will not immediately incapacitate an attacker over 90% of the time?

Do you mean we will never have a drug that can cause incapacitation very rapidly when delivered to the center of the chest via a handgun bullet?

Do you mean that it will never be possible for a handgun bullet to deliver an electrical shock capable of immediate incapacitation?

There are important distinctions between what might be politically acceptable and what will be possible.

Since these will surely never see use in this country, what practical good does this type of fantasy do us? Let me be clear, I'm not trying to knock you or your study, I simply fail to see the relevance as I stated earlier, and I also fail to see how you can get adequate data on all or even the majority of handgun bullets without doing tens of thousands of tests on live animals. Sure, you'll get a good sample of LE bullets (so we can assume your data for say, a Ranger Talon will be from a better sample than say, Winchester white box defense JHP ammo) but again, is it really going to tell us anything we don't already have a pretty good indication of? We'll just have to wait and see.

It's exciting research no doubt, when you start killing 30,000 animals, the data and the backlash will be interesting.

Also, please understand, just because some of us do not see the practical implications of such research does not mean we're trying to insult you, so saying things like

Once the details get mathematically complicated, people often prefer to resort to older personal biases than make the cerebral effort required to understand the issue. Overcoming these personal biases often requires unanimous agreement among experts, and clear statements from government agencies, such as "The Surgeon General has determined that smoking is hazardous to your health."

just come off as a petty insults to the intelligence of anyone that does not agree with you. Hardly a way to begin an unbiased stream of research.

Good luck.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Since these will surely never see use in this country, what practical good does this type of fantasy do us?

I was answering the specific point made by someone else that immediate incapacitation is not possible with a handgun-sized projectile launcher. I tried to be clear in distinguishing what is possible and what is legal for ordinary citizens. Even without resorting to these radical new designs, significant improvement is possible (see below).

However, I would not rule out these more radical possibilities for military and law enforcement use, particularly if these ideas prove effective in counter terrorism applications in other countries.

Let me be clear, I'm not trying to knock you or your study, I simply fail to see the relevance as I stated earlier, and I also fail to see how you can get adequate data on all or even the majority of handgun bullets without doing tens of thousands of tests on live animals. Sure, you'll get a good sample of LE bullets (so we can assume your data for say, a Ranger Talon will be from a better sample than say, Winchester white box defense JHP ammo) but again, is it really going to tell us anything we don't already have a pretty good indication of?

You don't need data on an exhaustive list of available loads. If the goal is a reliable predictive model (giving the probability incapacitation curve) from parameters measurable in ballistic gelatin, this can probably be done with a representative sample of a few dozen different service caliber loads.

Once we establish which gelatin parameters are best correlated with the features of the incapacitation probability curves, we will know which features to improve to increase the probability of rapid incapacitation.

It's exciting research no doubt, when you start killing 30,000 animals, the data and the backlash will be interesting.

If shot placement is carefully controlled some pretty interesting things can be said from fewer than 1000 animals.

In addition, deer hunters kill millions of animals each year. We've got a methodology that allows deer to be used as test subjects and that can be applied under hunting conditions for hunters who are willing to make a few careful measurements.

The Strasbourg Goat Tests only included 580 animals, and we've been able to draw some interesting conclusions from this data set.

1. The peak pressure wave magnitude dominates the incapacitation probability curves for times under 5 seconds.

2. Beyond 5 seconds, the incapacitation probability curves are dominated by the volume of crushed tissue.

3. The early pressure wave effects begin to turn on at a pressure wave magnitude of 500 PSI (determined on the edge of a 1" diameter cylinder centered on the wound channel), and really become interesting for loads with peak pressure wave magnitudes of 1000 PSI.

4. The fast response time depends strongly on peak pressure wave magnitude, as does the probability of the fast response (< 5 seconds) occuring. All the features of the fast (< 5 seconds) response part of the incapacitation probability curve can be accurately predicted (better than 5%) from the peak pressure wave magnitude.

We predict that by increasing the peak pressure magnitude to 3500 PSI (determined on the edge of a 1" diameter cylinder centered on the wound channel) locating the peak deeper in the wound channel, it will be possible to achieve 90% probability of incapacitation in 1-2 seconds. We are pursuing research in internal ballistics and bullet design(see "Improving Bullet Effectiveness" thread on the Handgun Discussion forum) to accomplish this without resorting to methods that will likely be outlawed.

Michael Courtney

 

[Jeff White]

Michael Courtney said;

Think outside of the box.

Do you mean to assert that 150 grains of high explosive fused to explode at a penetration distance of 6" will not immediately incapacitate an attacker over 90% of the time?

150 grains of what high explosive, PETN, RDX, fulminate of mercury? How big is your time fuse and detonator? And this whole thing is hardened enough to survive the heat and pressure it gets in the barrel of a handgun and not detonate on impact? I think we're a very long way from that being technologically possible.

Do you mean we will never have a drug that can cause incapacitation very rapidly when delivered to the center of the chest via a handgun bullet?

Again, not technologically possible in the foreseeable future.

Do you mean that it will never be possible for a handgun bullet to deliver an electrical shock capable of immediate incapacitation?

Are you talking about delivering a fatal shock to the heart?

There are important distinctions between what might be politically acceptable and what will be possible.

None of those things would be politically acceptable even if they were technologically possible.

The probability of any shooting event being caught with audio surveillance is rapidly increasing. There's an audio recording of almost every police stop now, and both audio and video on many ATM's. Some cities have installed audio systems for the detection and location of gunfire in the areas where gun shots are most likely to occur. An increasing number of shooting events are being captured on 911 calls.

Acording to the Bureau of Justice Statistics there are somewhere around 800,000 local, state and federal law enforcement officers in this country. Somewhere around 80% of those officers work for agencies that employ less then 10 sworn officers. The only audio recording you get on most traffic stops is of the radio traffic. So unless an officer has his mic keyed throughout the entire encounter (very unlikely) you're not getting an audio recording of the gunfight. Many states have anti evesdropping laws that prohibit the recording of audio without the knowledge and consent of both parties or with a warrant. When dash cams first came into use here in Illinois, we were prohibited from using the audio portion until the legislature passed a law amending the evesdropping law.

Many encounters take place out of the view of the dash cam, the video surveillance at the ATM or the convenience store. And I doubt even with the most sophisticated equipment you could get very much wound data off the sound of gun shots from a 911 tape.

I have drawn my handgun 3 times in legally justified self-defense. Only had to shoot once. On another occasion I confronted a drug dealer on my property with a shotgun. He waited patiently and compliantly for the police.

And what was the outcome of your defensive shooting? How many rounds were fired, from what distance and what effect did they have on your attacker? Do you have a link to a news article about the shooting? Was your experience in your defensive shooting such that it set you down this road to finding a more effective round?

First of all, proper self-defense training should have the gun drawn prior to contact.

Proper self defense training doesn't mean squat when you're ambushed or out in a public venue where you can't draw your weapon as soon as you anticipate problems. There are many incidents where a situation a police officer is involved in where a situation escalates all the way up the force continuum from presence to deadly force in a second. There is no way that you will always have your weapon in hand at the exact moment you need it.

Secondly, I did not assert that incapacitation in 4 seconds completely removed the possibility of great bodily harm, only that incapacitation in 4 seconds gives a potential victim a pretty good chance of avoiding great bodily harm.

Why 4 seconds? Why not 3 seconds or 5 seconds?

Yes it can. But it's not as long as 8 seconds. Would you rather avoid the iron bar for 4 seconds or for 8?

I'm firing COM of what I can see until the suspect is down while moving off the line of attack. One hit that takes half a second to execute could be fatal. I'm sure not going to stand there and wait four seconds to see if the shot did in fact incapacitate the subject.

The best available load is only one aspect. Training is clearly more important. But this does not mean that load selection is irrelevant. Nor does it preclude the development of more effective loads in the future.

How are you going to deal with vasoconstriction? Since exsanguination is the second most effect method of incapacitation, your more effective bullet needs to cause enough damage to casue enough blood loss to cause the person to lose consciousness in 4 seconds or less (by your own standard).

Vasoconstriction can be caused by either cold or stress. Between 145 and 175 BPM the blood is essentially shut off to the outer portions of the body, this is why you have to have a round that penetrates at least 13 inches and why much of the wound may not bleed very much.

The thing you can't account for, is the fact that not everyone reacts to stress the same way. Some subjects who are surprised may exhibit almost no vasoconstiction and some who are ready for the fight of their lives may have a lot of it if their heart rate is up. This is believed to be one explanation as to how men continue to function for a superhuman amount of time after receiving a wound that should be almost instantly fatal.

We haven't even gotten into adrenalin and the other defnsive measures the body takes in a fight. That's why I stand by my assertion that until you come up with a hand held weapon that will actually destroy enough tissue to immediately incapacitate the subject, you're tilting at windmills.

Jeff

 

[NineseveN]

However, I would not rule out these more radical possibilities for military and law enforcement use, particularly if these ideas prove effective in counter terrorism applications in other countries.

The technology to do this is so far off from even becoming a test subject it is currently a non-issue.

If shot placement is carefully controlled some pretty interesting things can be said from fewer than 1000 animals.

Yes, interesting things such as, "if your shot placement is X, you can achieve result Y in Z seconds" which means absolutely nothing, zip, zilch, nada. If you cannot control your shots in the street in the same manner that you can test them in the lab, the data is useless because it only correlates in theory. All you are saying is what we already know, if your shot placement is right and the round has the right affect on organs and tissue, rapid incapacitation may result in higher frequencies than we see with poorer shot placement and less organ/tissue effects.

In addition, deer hunters kill millions of animals each year. We've got a methodology that allows deer to be used as test subjects and that can be applied under hunting conditions for hunters who are willing to make a few careful measurements.

The variables cannot be controlled, deer hunters do not kill millions of deer every year with service caliber handguns, deer don't wear coats, they don't shoot back, they don't have the same physiological make-up of a human, deer don't smoke crack or get hyped up on cocaine...again, meaningless in the field. You are not going to find anything on "stopping power" with such research. You will find out about specific round performance in very controlled or uncontrolled environments with certain shot placements with very limited credible data on how that transfers into shooting 120lb. hyped-up heroin addicts with knives or 300lb. muscle head section 8 marines with Colt 1911's both very intent on doing you physical harm.



Like I said, good luck with your research, the claims made based on the data you find will be interesting and fun to watch as it all progresses.

 

[JohnKSa]

While it sounds like single shots would be used in the carefully controlled experiments, I have not seen Mr. Courtney advocate that single shots be used in self defense situations. In fact, he's specifically said that wasn't recommended.

The idea that the time to incapacitation would be measured in seconds and various gun/ammo combinations would receive various time "grades " doesn't imply that any particular grade is a RECOMMENDED or IDEAL time to incapacitation.

The EXAMPLES Mr. Courtney has given in which he's commented about various amounts of time to incapacitation are JUST EXAMPLES. I've not seen any suggestion that he's saying that 4 seconds (to grab a number out of the air) is what one should expect, what one should be satisfied with, or what one should want. It's nothing but an example, used as a comparison with other numbers which may be larger or smaller. There's no sense arguing whether 4 seconds is ideal or not, or whether 4 seconds is sufficient or not. The idea isn't that 4 seconds is a good number, the idea is that if the study shows that gun/ammo combination provides an average time to incapacitation of 8 seconds and another provided an average time to incapacitation of 4 seconds, I think EVERYONE can agree that the second round is preferable to the first. NOT that 4 seconds is a good goal to shoot for.

What I see is a lot of people seemingly grasping at straws and desperately searching for every tiny loose thread in what appears to be a serious effort to stop any effort to do this sort of research. I don't understand that. The endless debate on the topics of "stopping power", caliber choices, bullet choices, etc. should make it plain that this field is not well understood. There don't seem to be good, solid, scientific answers, just opinions and questionable rules of thumb.

I think that any research that MIGHT shed light on this topic should be a welcome thing in our community. Sure, some people may not like the results, but that's life. Some people didn't like relativity, the round earth, or finding that the earth wasn't the center of the universe either. Right now, we don't even know for sure what the results will be. It's premature to attack the experiment or the experimenter before the results are even published.

 

[Michael Courtney]

And what was the outcome of your defensive shooting? How many rounds were fired, from what distance and what effect did they have on your attacker? Do you have a link to a news article about the shooting? Was your experience in your defensive shooting such that it set you down this road to finding a more effective round?

I don't mean to be evasive, but for legal reasons, I prefer to keep much of this information under the radar.

How are you going to deal with vasoconstriction? Since exsanguination is the second most effect method of incapacitation, your more effective bullet needs to cause enough damage to casue enough blood loss to cause the person to lose consciousness in 4 seconds or less (by your own standard).

We believe that incapacitation via blood loss almost always takes longer then 5 seconds. Even with ideal shot placement, most handgun bullets take an average of 8-12 seconds to incapacitate by blood pressure drop. (You need ideal shot placement with a 1.5" diameter for an average incapacitation time of 5 seconds.)

Assertions that bullets that miss the CNS can only work via blood loss are depending on an unproven presupposition (or hypothesis), not relating a result of careful experiments or observations.

We are unsure of the physiological mechanisms by which the pressure wave causes incapacitation, but we are sure it can cause incapacitation in under 5 seconds.

Vasoconstriction can be caused by either cold or stress. Between 145 and 175 BPM the blood is essentially shut off to the outer portions of the body, this is why you have to have a round that penetrates at least 13 inches and why much of the wound may not bleed very much.

You make a great case for investigating incapacitation mechanisms that do not depend on blood loss. That is what we are doing.

The thing you can't account for, is the fact that not everyone reacts to stress the same way. Some subjects who are surprised may exhibit almost no vasoconstiction and some who are ready for the fight of their lives may have a lot of it if their heart rate is up.

In addition to being associated with a fast (< 5 seconds) incapacitation mechanism, the pressure wave also might interfere with the body's ability to regulate blood pressure after a traumatic event.

Our working hypothesis is that the body's pressure sensing tissues in the aorta and the carotid arteries are stretched beyond the elastic limit by the pressure wave and don't properly inform the brain that the blood pressure is rapidly dropping. Consequently, the usual feedback mechanisms (including vasoconstriction) might not come into play so that the blood pressure drops more quickly.

This is believed to be one explanation as to how men continue to function for a superhuman amount of time after receiving a wound that should be almost instantly fatal.

Handgun loads that create higher pressure waves (creating over 1000 PSI as determined at the surface of a 1" diameter cylinder centered on the wound channel) greatly enhance a rapid incapacitation mechanism that doesn't depend on blood loss. These loads might also affect the body's ability to prevent rapid blood pressure loss. Improving handgun loads to create 2000 PSI and reliably penetrate 12" would be a huge step in reducing the number of occurances where "men continue to function for a superhuman amount of time after receiving a wound that should be almost instantly fatal."

We haven't even gotten into adrenalin and the other defnsive measures the body takes in a fight. That's why I stand by my assertion that until you come up with a hand held weapon that will actually destroy enough tissue to immediately incapacitate the subject, you're tilting at windmills.

Would handgun loads that incapacitate as well as the .223 be considered to be making progress? We believe that is possible in a relatively short timeframe (see post on "Improving Bullet Effectivess" in the Handgun forum).

Would you consider that to be "tilting at windmills"?

Michael Courtney

 

[Michael Courtney]

the idea is that if the study shows that gun/ammo combination provides an average time to incapacitation of 8 seconds and another provided an average time to incapacitation of 4 seconds, I think EVERYONE can agree that the second round is preferable to the first. NOT that 4 seconds is a good goal to shoot for.

One wonders whether these folks who argue against the benefits of reducing incapacitation times (because even reduced incapacitation times don't guarantee surviving a gunfight) would also argue against wearing seartbelts.

They might say, "Seatbelts don't guarantee surviving a car accident." (Analogous to asserting that decreasing incapacitation time doesn't guarantee surviving a lethal force encounter.)

They might say, "Seatbelts do very little in side-impact crashes." (Analogous to asserting that decreasing incapacitation time might not help in some kinds of lethal force encounters.)

But the point is that seatbelts substantially increase the survivability of many car accidents. Likewise decreasing incapacitation times will increase the survivability of many lethal force encounters.

The eventual goal in improving automobile design is that every accident will be survivable with minimal injuries. Significant progress has been made increasing survivability and reducing injuries. And even though we are still very far from the eventual goal, most of the progress has depended on incremental progress based on careful research.

The eventual goal in improving bullet effectiveness is that every lethal force encounter will be survivable with minimal injuries once a bullet is accurately delivered to the target. Significant progress has been made increasing survivability and reducing injuries with improved bullet designs and modern cartridges. And even though we are still very far from the eventual goal, most of the progress has depended on incremental progress based on careful research.

Using the best available bullet designs is like to wearing a seatbelt. It improves but does not guarantee survivability. But there are future improvements possible in handgun bullet effectiveness that will be like adding air bags, stability control, roll-over protection, etc. Each improvement might not help in every case, but the sum total of these incremental improvements can be significant.

Michael Courtney

 

[Michael Courtney]

Gunkid ramblings deleted by Bartholomew Roberts

Improving internal ballistics with the barrel rather than the ammo has much lower commercial viability because it requires introducing a new cartridge to ensure that the ammo does not create ka-booms in guns with current levels of friction. Better to improve the ballistics of the ammo side because improvements in this area will be applicable to the very large base of existing handguns.

Reducing barrel friction and improving propellants can potentially get existing service-sized guns in .357 Sig, .40 S&W, 10mm, and .45 ACP up to 1000 ft-lbs of energy.

Reducing bullet weight below 115 grains has limited commercial viability because ammo companies are not real eager to breach the 2000 FPS threshold with bullets that might pierce kevlar vests.

Michael Courtney