Handgun Caliber Selection Insight

Status
Not open for further replies.
The point is this; people are chasing a dream with this topic. EVEN IF you could find a slight difference in effectiveness in a controlled lab, you could never reap the benefits, due to the nature of a shooting...extremely high variation. What works in one, may have no effect in another.
Thanks for pointing out .357's words, Prosser. My reaction is that I agree--as long as we recognize that the FBI's "12 inch minimum" is a similar dream. You won't need that much in some gunfights, you'll need more in others--and without proper placement it won't matter.

There is an old saw: carry the most powerful handgun you can shoot well. Are we ready to discard that (because, after all, who cares about "power") for "Carry the gun firing the largest diameter bullet that penetrates at least 12 inches...that you can shoot well"?

For those of you that say yes, fine. But I'll stick with carry the most powerful handgun that you can shoot well.

Even if I didn't define "powerful" or "shoot well" and specify their respective units! :D
 
481, you are still using the definition of "stopping power" as the ability to physically stop an incoming attacker. We are using it to mean (as has been clarified several times), the ability of a bullet to stop the threat. Not as in "if I hit an arm travelling this fast, will it stop?" but to prevent the attacker from continuing the attack. We haven't defined the variables that would specifically show how much "stopping power" a bullet has, but that definition should be enough for the general concept.

You are refering to what is known as incapacitation. Perhaps you missed where I said this (post #128):

Of course I am debating the term, its validity (lack of) and that the term and its usage fails to consider the valuable aspect of shot placement. This is the fallacy of "stopping power". It assumes that shot placement is invariable in producing the effects we seek (incapacitation).

I am not equating the term under discussion to some form of, "if I hit an arm travelling this fast, will it stop?"

Part of getting down to exact variables and the exact criteria by which those variables are judged is by starting with a general concept. In your previous temperature example, how did people define degrees? They had to start with a base "it's warmer today than it was yesterday" and then figure out some way to measure the difference and assign units to explain it. However, I highly doubt the professional response to "it's warmer today than it was yesterday" was "since you have not adequately stated what 'warmer' means, with units, it is untruthful for you to say such a thing."

You've missed the point. Perceptions (how it feels outside) are also subjective terms.

Subjective terms have meanings that are specific to the user. Therefore, lacking a standardized definition, they are not directly comparable to one another.

A subjective term to include perceptions and feelings, may mean one thing to me and may mean something entirely different to you or to LH.

Objective terms, on the other hand (like permamnent wound cavity volume, penetration depth) all have objective defintions (cubic inches and inches respectively) that are directly comparable to one another. They have a standard. An inch to you, is an inch to me and an inch to LH. That is the difference.

It is also why "stopping power" remains an invalid term. It lacks a standard and it lacks a definable metric.
 
Objective terms, on the other hand (like permamnent wound cavity volume, penetration depth) all have objective defintions
Yes. That is their strength, and their attractiveness.

However, they are fetishes. They are substitutes for what matters: stopping the attack. If my attacker kills me after a put a 12-inch length hole in him, it will become very clear to me that what I wanted wasn't penetration.

It was to stop him. Actually, that's already clear to me.

The "objectivity" of the measures you mention is their allure; but it is a deceptive allure. They are not a substitute for what we're really after.

I am happy to use them as a guide, but not to elevate them above other guides.

You know the old joke about the scientist who was searching for his dropped keys under a streetlamp at night? A passerby tries to help: "Where'd you drop them?" He answers, "Down the street over there." "Then, why are you looking for them here?" "Because this is where the light is."

Permanent wound cavity volume and penetration depth are under the streetlamp, so we like them and use them. But effectiveness is sitting next to the keys, in the dark.
 
Last edited:
The problem, 481, is we're not defining wound cavity volume. We're trying, at this point, to see what variables fit and how they fit. If we were going to a study, this is the point where we define the variables. However, we can't seem to get passed the "stopping power is invalid because you haven't defined variables" to really discuss defining them.

Step 1: Ask "how can you measure 'stopping power'?" This means you have to have an abstract definition of stopping power to work from.
Step 2: Define what variables must be considered.
Step 3: Set up an experiment to test those variables.

We are trying to move from Step 1 to Step 2. However, you seem to be hung up on the specific term "stopping power" and want to be on Step 3, where the terms are already defined. At least that's the attitude I get.

So...okay. We can't agree that "stopping power" is a good term because you can't get over the stigma that stopping power is a bad term. What term would you propose that meets this definition:
A rating which correlates to the chance of a given caliber to, on a hit to the X*, cause the attack to stop in Y time.**
*Note that X is a currently undefined body part (such as "upper abdomen, neck, or head", but open for discussion and hence currently undefined), and Y is the time you consider to be short enough to consider the threat passed.
**Note that whether the stop is voluntary or involuntary is up for discussion, but not 100% relevant to the name applied to the definition. Also note that I would like to factor in multiple hits, but I am looking for the individual effect that can then be extrapolated into "what about 2 hits?"

What word would you use describe that trait, for use in discussion?
 
481: said:
You have yet to define what "effectiveness" is.

Actually, again, I have. We apparently differ in our definition of "define" (and that can get tricky!).

You've done nothing of the sort. You've merely proposed levels of "effectiveness" without telling us what "effectiveness" is. When asked for details you responded:

Loosedhorse: said:
Similarly, I also defined three levels of effectiveness (for hunting, anyway), although you say I didn't. Perhaps your asking for more detail? Modesty prevents!

You can only offer in response that "modesty prevents". You've been forthcoming with all sorts of statements until now, what happened?

I don't think that it is "modesty" that is preventing you from answering. You've talked yourself into a corner and can't find your way out.

You are outta steam, here, LH. Plain and simple you have nothing left and it isn't "modesty" that "prevents". You don't have the answer.

As to modesty: I am happy to defer to others this task of defintion.

What "work" are you signing me up to do? I am discussing.

Well, after offering your opinion as to what "stopping power" is-

Don't look now, folks, but some people are saying that some calibers have more "stopping power" or "knock-down power" than others. With knock down power being defined as "ability to kill animals like Thor's Hammer,"--I like that phrase, by the way!--and stopping power as the ability to end fights.

-you've yet to prove it. Because you've made an assertion, it is up to you to prove it, not me or Skribs or someone else.

Your dodge "modesty prevents" when asked for the details that you offered earlier has me convinced that you are simply being contentious for the sake of being contentious and have nothing worthy of serious consideration to offer. :rolleyes:

Well, that's not entirely accurate either...you never had the answers in the first place. ;)

Bye.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
The problem, 481, is we're not defining wound cavity volume. We're trying, at this point, to see what variables fit and how they fit. If we were going to a study, this is the point where we define the variables. However, we can't seem to get passed the "stopping power is invalid because you haven't defined variables" to really discuss defining them.

Never said we were. Besides wound cavity has already been defined. Not the point.

Step 1: Ask "how can you measure 'stopping power'?" This means you have to have an abstract definition of stopping power to work from.

None exists as yet. I'd love to see one.

Step 2: Define what variables must be considered.

Well, those'll have to be objective and measureable. You cannot meaningfully quantify the subjective.

Step 3: Set up an experiment to test those variables.

Goes without saying, but y'all will need to handle steps #1 and #2 first.

We are trying to move from Step 1 to Step 2. However, you seem to be hung up on the specific term "stopping power" and want to be on Step 3, where the terms are already defined. At least that's the attitude I get.

Really, I don't care what you call it. If it that name is "stopping power" then it better have some unitary agreenment with the technical term "power".

So...okay. We can't agree that "stopping power" is a good term because you can't get over the stigma that stopping power is a bad term.

You read me wrong. I don't care what you call it so long as it isn't an abuse of the technical term.

What term would you propose that meets this definition:
A rating which correlates to the chance of a given caliber to, on a hit to the X*, cause the attack to stop in Y time.**
*Note that X is a currently undefined body part (such as "upper abdomen, neck, or head", but open for discussion and hence currently undefined), and Y is the time you consider to be short enough to consider the threat passed.
**Note that whether the stop is voluntary or involuntary is up for discussion, but not 100% relevant to the name applied to the definition. Also note that I would like to factor in multiple hits, but I am looking for the individual effect that can then be extrapolated into "what about 2 hits?"

What word would you use describe that trait, for use in discussion?

What you are attempting to quantify is unquantifiable until the bullet hits some part of the assailant's anatomy.

It is, for the most part, a "fools errand" and not one that I am compelled to undertake since I am not saying that there is such a thing as "stopping power".

You and LH seem to believe that "stopping power" is a valid concept. That's fine with me, but it is not my duty to prove what you (and LH) are alleging.

Good luck.

:)
 
David, I think that the same things which make people better shooters with the .45 would also increase their proficiency with the 9. However, I think if you practice the .45, you might be faster with it in comparison to what you could with the 9, simply because you're readjusting to the recoil.

With all due respect to you and Prosser, my original statement stands.

Tell me, how fast are your splits (time between shots) with a 9mm? How fast are they with a .45?

I'm talking measured splits of 1/4 second or less, not "how it feels."
If you are talking longer splits, or have no clue what your splits are, then what are you basing your disagreement on?.

Here's the "secret" that makes it work: you can only move your trigger finger so fast. Pull, release, pull. It's what you're able to do within the "release" phase that allows you to reacquire the sights for the next shot. If we're talking a Bill Drill at 5-7 yds, the split should be less than a 1/4 (.25) second. Better shooters can easliy get that below .20, but let's keep it at .25. During that quarter second, properly executed technique brings the gun back to the same spot it was the shot before, all taking place during the "release" phase of the trigger pull.

Does a 9mm kick less? For the sake of this example, "absolutely!" While you have less flip to overcome, the time frame is the same for your trigger finger to work. This does allow an additional micro-second to verify the sights, so its easier for the beginning shooter to be more accurate with a 9mm in the same time frame, but that's why I specified "practiced" in the proper technique.

Note that it doesn't apply to one hand shooting, or to guns/calibers with significantly more kick than a .45 acp.
 
and stopping power as the ability to end fights

That statement doesn't need proving. He is defining stopping power as the ability to end fights. What he needs to prove is that there is a difference in stopping power between different calibers. What you're asking, it seems, is almost to prove that his definition is real. It could very well be that all bullets possess the same ability to stop a fight, in which case their stopping power is equal.

We have defined "stopping power" and what it is. We have not selected and defined the variables that affect stopping power. I think you're trying to put both of them together.

Note: Webster defines "power" in several ways, the first of which (according to the link below) is:
"ability to act or produce an effect"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power
In this discussion, we are defining "stopping power" as the "power" (ability to produce an effect) where stopping the threat is the effect. That is the definition.

From there, we define variables which allow us to assign stopping power to the different calibers, and then compare them to each other. I think this is where we're getting hung up. Without the variables, we cannot assign a comparative rating. However, without the variables, we can still understand what "stopping power" is. Yes, we may have different ideas of what can cause it, or whether or not different calibers have different levels of stopping power, but we can still understand what it is in an abstract sense.

You are right, he stated 3 levels of effectiveness, but he didn't define them. However, one can clearly see a scale there, and I doubt bullets of a similar "level" are going to function the exact same. At the same time, I don't think anyone who speaks English as a first language would have a hard time figuring out where on the scale each of the 3 levels are in relation to each other (i.e. weakest to strongest). By how much they differ is up for interpretation, but it is a pretty simple scale to follow on the general sense.

EDIT: Posted while I was typing...

@ no abstract definition exists...it does. We have actually provided it several times, but we keep getting rejected. You cannot deny that bullets do not have stopping power by the definition provided, because they do stop threats (otherwise, why do we carry?). You can deny that bullets have different levels of stopping power. But to deny that stopping power exists, by our definition, is to deny that a gun will stop the threat.

I didn't think of it like that, David. Out of curiosity, how many twitch gamers have you taught to shoot? If you've heard my friend hammer a keyboard while playing RPGs, you'd probably be shocked at how fast a finger can move, and in some games I've managed to click fast enough to make semi-automatics fire faster than the 600 RPM full-auto guns. I know it's not quite the same as pulling a trigger, but I'm just curious.

However, I wouldn't say that "with practice you can shoot a .45 as fast as a 9." I would say that "if your recoil control with a .45 is faster than your trigger finger, you will shoot a .45 as fast as a 9."
 
Last edited:
That statement doesn't need proving. He is defining stopping power as the ability to end fights. What he needs to prove is that there is a difference in stopping power between different calibers. What you're asking, it seems, is almost to prove that his definition is real. It could very well be that all bullets possess the same ability to stop a fight, in which case their stopping power is equal.

OK, that's great, but until you establish how those variables will be measured you have nothing but a catchy turn of phrase (what you are calling an abstract definition).

We are now up to a "definite maybe". Let's be generous and say that you have your abstract definition. What's next? Variables, yeah?

Without the variables, we cannot assign a comparative rating.

That's been my point all along. :)

Those variables and the resultant comparative rating had better be defined by an objective metric of some sort (kilograms, meters, Newtons, Watts, Joules, Volts, Amperes, Calories, BTUs, or Parsecs, etc.) too or you'll still be left with nothing but a catchy turn of phrase.

Dimensionless ratings won't do since they have no units to provide an "apples to apples" comparison. (grams to grams, meters to meters, Volts to Volts, etc.)

By way of example, look at Hatcher's RSP. It gives a .45 caliber 230 gr. FMJRN @ 850 fps a rating of 61.

But 61 of what?

61 pounds of target mass? An IQ of 61? 61 pound-seconds of impulse? 61 inches of penetration? 61 ounces of blood? 61 psi?

Without a unitary dimension of some sort all you have is a random scalar number.

That's why we measure bullet velocity in feet per second, powder charge weight in grains, kinetic energy in joules or fpe, barrel length in inches.

If I tell you that a bullet's muzzle velocity is "660" how do you know if that is in feet per second or miles per hour unless I state the units?

You need units to be valid.
 
Last edited:
.
I didn't think of it like that, David. Out of curiosity, how many twitch gamers have you taught to shoot?

No clue. Inexplicably, that question didn't make it on the course eval.

If you've heard my friend hammer a keyboard while playing RPGs, you'd probably be shocked at how fast a finger can move, I know it's not quite the same as pulling a trigger, but I'm just curious.

No, I wouldnt be shocked. You're right, it's not the same.

However, I wouldn't say that "with practice you can shoot a .45 as fast as a 9." I would say that "if your recoil control with a .45 is faster than your trigger finger, you will shoot a .45 as fast as a 9."

You can say what you wish, of course, but my statement stands: with proper technique and sufficient practice, you can shoot a 9mm just as fast and accurately as a .45
 
Are there existing comparisons between the calibers using hinged and/or springed silhouette targets? Something similar to the military qualification courses, where objective measurements could be taken which reflect the amount of force imparted to the target at known distances. Angular changes, distance from axis of rotation, etc.

If no known studies exist, it could be a fun experiment to run.

The problem is that it doesn't relate to the way energy is transferred in elastic body tissue. Energy transfer from low-to-medium velocity pistol rounds does nothing to aid in incapacitation. The energy of a standard round, a +P round, and one of a different caliber all make similar wound tracks, both permanent and secondary. The wound track of a .45 ACP is almost identical to that of a 9mm. Even an experienced surgeon cannot tell what caliber of bullet was used in the shooting, only whether it was small or large. One may be able to make a good guess once it is removed, if they are familiar with characteristics that make some easy to identify (the long nose of the 9mm, for example). Try telling a .38 from a .357, and you're SOL. Even using CT/MRI, the wounds look the same, and the damage done is often the same.

If you really want to have a visual aid, look at gel block testing. Most of the 9mm, .40, .45, 357, 10mm, etc rounds make similar tracks. Keep in mind, when you look at that, the temporary, or stretch cavity you see upon entry is not strong enough to damage anything vital, in most cases. It usually results in ruptured fat tissue and small blood vessels (again, neither of which aids in incapacitation). Back to topic...with variance, once again, you have some 9mms that will make a cavity slightly larger than the .40 or .45, and vice versa. You also have differing degrees of penetration between rounds of the same and different calibers. There is no way for two bullets, even from the same lot and caliber, to duplicate exact performance. Even with gel testing, which is the best we have right now, the different bullet designs and calibers wash even.
 
Last edited:
David E:
Couple different schools of shooting.

I'll call the first one the Lee Jurras method.
You lock both hands on the gun, hold on as hard as you can, and pull the trigger, using every bit of your strength to keep the muzzle down, and on target. Lee shot a LOT of .44 Magnum, with 185 grain, 1900 fps loads with this method.

I didn't learn that method. Since I liked SA/DA guns, and accuracy, I was taught use as relaxed a grip as you can, pull the trigger as lightly and as consistently as possible, without jerking. Don't anticipate, then pull the gun out of recoil for the next shot.

Keep in mind at this time, we didn't really do custom grips much. I had big hands, and, without proper sized grips, the strangle-Jurras method didn't really work.

The gorilla in the corner was all the stuff I shot was pretty heavy recoil. My SA fun load was 230 grain ball at 1800 fps, out of a Seville. With small grips, and big hands, that was the limit of what could be held on to, and very near over it.

My carry gun was a Detonics Mark VI, using Detonics 200 grain flying ashtray at 1200 fps load. With standard grips, this load would take the skin off my hands pretty fast. Plus the grips were too small, and if I made them big enough, they didn't conceal well. Also the standard grips wore holes in my shirts when I carried the gun.

The solution was to sand the grips smooth. This solved the shirt problem.
It also made the death grip shooting method impossible.

So, for 5 years, every other day, couple hours a day this is how I shot, with both the Seville and the Detonics.

Take a relaxed grip, pull the trigger, keep your arms relaxed, and let the gun ride up in recoil. Keep in mind, this is NOT limp wristing. With the Seville, if you limp wristed the hammer would be in the center of your forehead.
Once the shot was off, keep your eye on the target, pull the gun out of recoil, put the front site on the target, and pull trigger again. Needless to say, with the Seville you had to cock the hammer.
With the Detonics, you can get your shots down to under a .3 second, my guess, and, hit your target. It does take practice. This was shooting at 15-25 yards.

This technique works for really heavy loads as well, provided you have proper sized grips. If you are trying to death grip the gun, with too small grips, it's impossible, or near so, to stay on target when you pull the trigger, for me. Jurras had his load limitations, but, in his prime, he could put 6 shots on a playing card, at 100 yards.

I realize that with the modern guns, compensators, and loads you can
never readjust the gun, never loose site picture, and keep the front site on the target. It's a fancy way of shooting like you have a .22lr, but selling everyone that your are shooting a 'real' gun.:D

I figured that's why God created .22lr.

I tend to agree with the Gel testing point. Watching this stuff in slow motion gives you a real good idea when you get outside the SD caliber box.

Here is pretty close to what I have loaded in my .475 Linebaugh, same weight bullet, same hollow point, mine are only 1560 fps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZCqQWJhjtY

Now, compare that to10 MM, 170 grains 1204 fps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z49Lbnt16M

Now the .45 ACP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwAbIdamK2A

Then back to a .45-70, 300 grain, HP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE8F0Bno7Qo

As you can see, you can get .500 grain loads that come pretty close to a .45-70 rifle.
You can also shoot these out of a packable handgun:

GIRLS4LHPS852010copy.jpg

Finally lets look at 9MM Black Talon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo4c9-V2AH8

Conclusions?
Comments?
 
Last edited:
Well, after offering your opinion as to what "stopping power" is-

-you've yet to prove it.
And precisely how would you have me prove that my opinion is my opinion? :confused:;):D
You and LH seem to believe that "stopping power" is a valid concept. That's fine with me, but it is not my duty to prove what you (and LH) are alleging.
And you are alleging that it is an invalid concept. So it's up to you to prove that. You are also alleging that penetration is a good measure of bullet effectiveness against attackers; you might want to prove that, too.

Sad. Just when we were beginning to talk about science, you're resorting to "unequal burdens of proof": you get to assume that you're right, but require me to prove I'm right. Sorry: if you get to assume you're right, so do I; if I have to prove, then you do, too.

Good luck. :)

How's the search for your keys going? :D
RSP. It gives a .45 caliber 230 gr. FMJRN @ 850 fps a rating of 61.

But 61 of what?
Who cares? The "R" in RSP stand for "relative." It doesn't matter what the number "means", it matters how one cartridge compares to another. Just like TKO.

I like to go to movies that received "five stars" on review. I don't need an explanation of what precisely a star is to know that movie's probably better than a one-star.
 
Last edited:
David E:

I realize that with the modern guns, compensators, and loads you can
never readjust the gun, never loose (sp) site picture, and keep the front site on the target. It's a fancy way of shooting like you have a .22lr, but selling everyone that your are shooting a 'real' gun.:D
.

There are many ways to shoot a handgun, but some ways are better than others.

I discussed compensated guns to explain why, in one division, .38 Super rules.

Other than that, my comments are directed specifically to standard guns, which I mentioned previously in this thread. "Standard" as in uncompensated iron sighted 1911's, Glocks, etc
 
Last edited:
Thanks> I'll give that a try next time at the range. May have to buy that Glock 29 to try it, or my little Kahr.
 
Curiously, I found that trigger type affected my splits more than caliber.

For example, I shot my aluminum framed compact Kimber .45 faster than my Kahr P-9

I shot a borrowed Sig 238 faster than anything else that day.....except for that Kimber.
 
One of the reasons I like 2-3 pound 1911 triggers. Short reset, light pressure.
Easy to double.
 
Let's take a shot at this.

Stopping Power was a phrase coined by two guys who tried, sort of, to gather data and determine what was the percentage of times a fire fight, or attack was stopped by a single gun shot.

It became both their idea, and, their curse.
Some of their data was really kind of funny, in it's lack of accuracy. Did you know a certain 125 grain .357 load was more effective then another .308 rifle round?

What their 'data' proved was that being accurate in collecting such data can be influenced by a number of factors. One wonders if that includes the ammunition companies, but, that's PURE speculation on my part.

Without factoring in certain factors, you end up with conclusions like the 44 magnum has less stopping power then a 125 grain .357 Magnum.

I don't pretend to have an answer for the semantics. I will say that certain loads, in certain calibers, are much more likely to require fewer shots to stop an animal, and do more damage, then other calibers.

I am not above pointing out that multiple accurate shots, with lighter, bullets, for instance double OO buck, pretty much 8 .38's at the same time,
or a clip from a .45 ACP, 9MM, or .380 Mac 10, at 600-1200 rounds a minute
are another alternative method to achieving stopping power.

I would suggest that trying to decide which is superior is determined by what you can own, what you can shoot, and how fast.

Jerry M. can put 6 .45 Colt rounds on me faster then I can blink.

Likewise Bob Munden can hit me with .45 Colt, and holster the gun before I even have a chance to react.

At the end of the day, it's what you can shoot well, not me, not Lee Jurras,
not Jack Huntington or John Linebaugh.

It's also what's legal in your state. I can't carry a Mac 10 45 in Kali, but, I'd give it SERIOUS consideration if I could. I'd also look at full auto glocks.

If not, I want a semi-auto that I can hit quickly and hard with, and, in a revolver one that will do likewise.

There is no magic caliber, there is no magic handgun, unless it's your favorite.

Finally you have the real determining factors in Stopping Power. They are standing in the corner together: Father Time and the Grim Reaper.
 
481 posted: All three scales (RSP/TKO/ratings stars) are contrived/subjective and cannot offer meaningful comparison because they have no standard metric.

As an engineer I need to take exception to this. TKO, for example, is determined by an exact and object equation (terminal vel x weight x expanded diameter / 7,000) and as such IS the metric. A ctg with a TKO = 16 has precisely twice that combination of factors as one with 8 as as such it is a precise metric.

What perhaps you meant to say was there is no precise relationship between these metrics and stopping power, which is true: TKO (and RSP) is a loosely calibrated metric. By loosely calibrated I mean that most of us would agree that a .44 Mag with good quality SD loads (TKO ~18) is a more reliable man-stopper than a BB gun (TKO <1) for all other factors equal (such as shot placement, obstacles, etc). A .38 Special (TKO ~6) is somewhere in between. If you want to debate rounds that are similar (say, 9mm and .40S&W with TKOs of around 10, and perhaps including .38Spcl) then you can no longer use TKO to decide which is the better SD round, because (i) TKO as a metric has not been sufficiently calibrated (and probably never will be simply because there are too many variables and you can't do controlled environment shoots of human targets) and (ii) other factors become the primary variables.
 
Would Avada Kedavra count as a magic caliber? Just kidding...

481, I think you've missed what I meant by an abstract definition. I was referring to a definition that, if I said it to someone, they would understand what I am talking about before I go into what the variables mean (for the sake of either introducing the topic, or if the variables hadn't been considered yet).

Using length, you could define length as "number of inches." But that doesn't tell me what length is, it just tells me what is used to measure it. Defining length as "a measured distance between two points" defines length very well, without using units. You can use centimeters, fathoms, inches, or footlengths to measure length. The technical definition would then be "The distance between two points in number of inches."

Similarly, my definition of stopping power didn't include the variables, but it did give you enough to see what I am talking about. It was specific enough (assuming the X and Y are hashed out) to explain the topic before figuring out/explaining the variables.

Prosser, I'm not trying to look at one-shot stop statistics. However, I think if you were to get the variables hashed out, single shots are where you would want to start. Number of shots could be included as a variable, but I would start with single shots.

David, I'm guessing (and that is guessing) that if you can get your trigger finger to move faster than how fast you can compensate for recoil, you'd still improve your times (if not by much) by using a 9. Of course, that would be really fast, but that's my guess.

What is the technique you recommend for fastest follow-up shots?
 
As an engineer I need to take exception to this. TKO, for example, is determined by an exact and object equation (terminal vel x weight x expanded diameter / 7,000) and as such IS the metric. A ctg with a TKO = 16 has precisely twice that combination of factors as one with 8 as as such it is a precise metric.

What perhaps you meant to say was there is no precise relationship between these metrics and stopping power, which is true: TKO (and RSP) is a loosely calibrated metric. By loosely calibrated I mean that most of us would agree that a .44 Mag with good quality SD loads (TKO ~18) is a more reliable man-stopper than a BB gun (TKO <1) for all other factors equal (such as shot placement, obstacles, etc). A .38 Special (TKO ~6) is somewhere in between. If you want to debate rounds that are similar (say, 9mm and .40S&W with TKOs of around 10, and perhaps including .38Spcl) then you can no longer use TKO to decide which is the better SD round, because (i) TKO as a metric has not been sufficiently calibrated (and probably never will be simply because there are too many variables and you can't do controlled environment shoots of human targets) and (ii) other factors become the primary variables.

OK, so we are still at the same place.

If there is no precise relationship between the two (the model's metrics and stopping power) then the models' (RSP/TKO) validity comes into question if it is used to compare different calibers.

Sounds pretty useless.
 
Did you know a certain 125 grain .357 load was more effective then another .308 rifle round?
Precisely why I switched to .308 125 grain HPs! :cool:;)

Actually, perhaps the one thing that their data showed was that good data is very difficult to come by. But, again, I do not discard all of their findings, even if I view them all cautiously.
Finally you have the real determining factors in Stopping Power. They are standing in the corner together: Father Time and the Grim Reaper.
:D
TKO as a metric has not been sufficiently calibrated
TKO has never been calibrated for anything except (perhaps) the shooting of elephants by ONE individual shooter. Not a lot to generalize from. And yet we do generalize TKO to some extent to other situations: is that idiotic, or reasonable within limits?

And I personally find that stars are a very valid way of comparing movies. I may bicker over 4 or 4.5 stars, but I'm rarely going to rate a "5" as a "1", or vice versa.
there is no precise relationship between these metrics and stopping power
I would argue that there's no precise relationship between anything we currently measure and stopping power. Even though "12 inch minimum penetration" (and its relationship to permanent wound cavity) is the current standard--and not a bad one--it is not the same.
 
Last edited:
481, I think you've missed what I meant by an abstract definition. I was referring to a definition that, if I said it to someone, they would understand what I am talking about before I go into what the variables mean (for the sake of either introducing the topic, or if the variables hadn't been considered yet).

Using length, you could define length as "number of inches." But that doesn't tell me what length is, it just tells me what is used to measure it. Defining length as "a measured distance between two points" defines length very well, without using units. You can use centimeters, fathoms, inches, or footlengths to measure length. The technical definition would then be "The distance between two points in number of inches."

Similarly, my definition of stopping power didn't include the variables, but it did give you enough to see what I am talking about. It was specific enough (assuming the X and Y are hashed out) to explain the topic before figuring out/explaining the variables.

OK, so you can use whatever units you'd like, but you'll still be quantifying length or in your case whatever "stopping power" is measured in.

Twist and turn all you might you'll still be using some sort of unitary measurement to convey what you are quantifying.

So when can we expect this seminal work to be done?

It sounds as if you've got all the answers.
 
Regarding the Stopping power thing.

First, and this is essentially off the topic of firearms, dimensionless units are perfectly valid. Some, like radians and percentages, are just naturally that way. But units are a pain in the butt for engineers. We like to get rid of them when possible by dividing by some reference with the same units to make the result a dimensionless number. Mach, atomic weight, decibels, specific gravity, etc.

Extending this to "stopping power" if you ever did define it precisely and quantitatively, you could easily divide whatever the result is for whatever round you're considering by whatever the result is for a .22 LR and there you are. Although I'd suspect that it might actually be a probability and thus be dimensionless right away.

Personally what I'm getting really interested in is bullets ability to stay intact, not deflect, and penetrate with enough momentum to do damage to vitals, not just the squishy circulatory system but the spine even after hitting curved bone.

I am beginning to have some grave doubts about some modern bullets.

First, as I said, I don't have a database of names of everything I've read, so I simply cannot give you titles, names, etc. to look up in a library. I have read published studies over the course of years, seen and given presentations, and have had discussions with others. I do not remember specific articles and their citations. Most people don't keep track of these things, and I'm one of them. The great thing is that there is no shortage of information out there on penetrating trauma.


Most people don't have a mental database of everything they've read.

But someone who has "given presentations" should remember something.

At least you did better with case studies.

What happens in the real world? People get shot in the head with a .45 caliber pistol and survive, while some get shot in the head with a .22 LR and die. Some can take a .44 Spl to the back of the head and live (one "Son of Sam" victim). People take 17 rounds of .40 Ranger SXT to the chest and abdomen and fight for a long time (Pete Soulis incident in Jax, FL). People take full cylinders of .357 Magnum at close range with no effect, only to kill the officer with a single .22 LR pistol round in the armpit (Trooper Mark Coates, SCHP). Responding officers have to fire 106 rounds, peppering the attacker with 27 .40 and .223 rounds, before he breaks off the fight and dies nearly 1 hr later (George Deeb in Hazleton, PA). I used these cases simply because they are easy to look up on the internet. There are infinitely many more out there. I personally saw a guy who was shot in the abdomen at contact range with a .22 LR pistol. He nearly died from blood loss. I saw another guy who was shot in the back of the head at close range (caliber unknown) survive with nearly a full recovery.

And some people win the lottery or beat the one armed bandit. That doesn't make either a good investment strategy.

Though it does seem like the whole big hole thing in relation to cutting capilaries might just not be right. Or rather it might be right in regards to relatives times, but in handgun calibers none of them are going to cause incapacitation quickly if you've only severed capilaries in muscle or lung even with multiple shots, so it doesn't really matter.

Still, I'd wonder about meaningful differences in time to incapacitation between nicking a major artery vs completely severing it.

But to a degree more worrying is what seems like serious issues with penetration and/or deflection in the George Deeb incident. I found a slide show that had X-rays and morgue shots of the guy afterward. Are we allowed to post stuff like that here for discussion?

Anyway, it's sort of like your bit with the .22 not being able to get through a cell phone. I think modern cartridge manufacturers desire to have rounds open up as much as possible and stop after 12 inches in bare gel and to entirely ignore the concept of deflection may mean a number of rounds are prone to deflect off of bone, may not penetrate sufficiently in an actually body, and may be not up to the task at all of shattering the spine after traveling some distance and having opened up.

As for the pressure wave, I have read a thing or two on it, forgotten most of it, and really don't see it making any major difference in the real world. Most of it is in theory, and has no real following or peer review by others in the field. Once again, variables will be so great, from one shooting to another, from one hit to another (on the same body), and from the external environment, that it is not reliable.

I can dig up my refs if you'd like. However to cut to the chase, no, it is not reliable, especially in handgun rounds. On the other hand reliability seems to be in short supply all around when it comes to incapacitation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top