Handgun Stopping Power - Efficacy?

[Gun Slinger]

It's hardly blind speculation--while you're not posting the formula you've made it plain that it incorporates some form of the "derivative of momentum" and a value in square inches (cross sectional area) but provides a result in pounds. With just that information it's plain to see that the units can not work out properly.

Incorrect. It is blind speculation on your behalf. The equation possesses unitary agreement on both sides of it (that was one quality that I sought most to achieve) despite your claims to the contrary.

In other words, the formula is not based in hard science--it's heuristic, at best. As such, without a strong correlation to real-world data it carries no more weight than opinion.

Well, as I've said before, I have a large data set with which to correlate the equation that I've developed.

I have grown weary of engaging in this "debate" with someone that I've no requirement to prove anything to and having said all that I wish to say, I believe that I am quite through with this particular topic.

Last word's all yours, John.

 

[tipoc]

A "grave injustice"? Hardly, but that's a good one!

Well a little tongue in cheek.

We OK?

Yep. Though I'm sorry you went and edited your previous comments now I look goofy.

... the seeming potential for misunderstanding that appears to exist here confirms my belief that my initial decision was for the best.

The decision not to show the formula. I disagree. You have a formula which you believe can be helpful in the selection of defensive cartridges. (I reserve the right to be skeptical of it's usefulness.) You've worked on it some and you have enough confidence in it to mention it. At some point you need to show it to your peers for their critique. The onus is on you to prove or at least show it's usefulness and to explain in what ways it's useful, what it shows and what it doesn't. You'll take some hits and that's part of the deal. We learn from our mistakes and can learn from others mistakes.

I'm skeptical of most such formulas but I also find them useful sometimes, Taylor's for example. Most don't show and can't show what they purport to. Marshal and Sanow for example are off base but their books provide a good deal of useful information. Their 2001 book "Stopping Power" has a very good article in it by John Jacobs (who disagrees with M and S) on the Border Patrols selection of ammo.

At any rate, when you are ready I hope you'll discuss the formula in a separate thread of it's own.

You read Robert Rinker's book on ballistics yet?

tipoc

 

[JohnKSa]

The equation possesses unitary agreement on both sides of it...

Ignoring the redundancy in this statement, how did you manage that? By dividing by feet somewhere just to make it work out?

I have grown weary of engaging in this "debate" with someone that I've no requirement to prove anything to and having said all that I wish to say, I believe that I am quite through with this particular topic.

Lovely. You weigh in, give your opinion in the form of a formula you won't reveal or support with real data and then bow out when called on it.

...and have access to a large "data set" via my Department's records and reports.
...
I have a large data set with which to correlate the equation that I've developed.

Maybe I'm being overly critical but I notice that while you have twice made reference to this "large data set"--you are stopping JUST short of making the claim that you have actually gone to the trouble of correlating your equation's results to this "large data set" or providing any of the results of that correlation.

Last word's all yours, John.

That remains to be seen, but thanks for the thought.

 

[Gun Slinger]

tipoc,

No, no, no, not goofy. Just disturbed. Glad we are "cool".

Already running some final numbers for validity and looking to one of our guys (who is by far more learned than I in this area in addition to being a nationally known LE trainer) in CAU (crime analysis unit, lots of computer geeks there ). I'll consider a correlation of better than .80 a "respectable start" and work on things from there.

Right the correlatory work is still "a work in progress" , but initial rough calcs look pretty good. My only concern at this time is adequate n, we'll see...

Thanks for the words of encouragement, they are appreciated. I am through with this topic.

 

[9x23]

Recap...

Now that the dust seems to have settled let me see if I have this right:

1 - There is no formula or data that will unequivocally predict the outcome of any cartridge and bullet combination on any given day or on any given individual.

2 - Formulas and data have some value in that they can help us to select “reasonable” cartridge and bullet combinations. BBs and bowling balls definitely do not fit the portions of the bell curve that we want to be in..

3 - The wound channel theory is alive and well with the caveat that those channels be placed where they will do the most good. The modified Mozambique technique - two to the mediastinum (Not COM as the bottom of the COM will not guarantee a heart hit) and one to the cranial vault or brain stem - would appear to be a “good bet”.

4 - On a personal level we do not want to supply Marshal & Sanow with any data contributing to their one-shot-stop compilations. Ammo is cheap and life is expensive; so multiple shots into the critical areas of your adversary are in order. The old saw that if it’s worth shooting, it’s worth
shooting more than once contributes a bit more to your “life assurance”.

Did I miss anything???.....9x23

 

[xmanpike]

I believe experience is the best teacher.

The US Army's fighting men had considerable difficulty stopping the Moro warriors and other combatants with the .38 Long Colt, and the Army began to consider the problem.

Solution.....45 ACP

 

[Oyeboten]

Whyever had they abdicated .45 LC in the first place?



(Well...we all know I recon...decisions-from-above...)

 

[Boberama]

1 - There is no formula or data that will unequivocally predict the outcome of any cartridge and bullet combination on any given day or on any given individual.

Yes, there is, it might just take a few dozen lifetimes to calculate it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, my formula suits me. Chuck Hawks says most formula's show their creators biases very well. Whatever. I'll still use my formula, you use yours.

 

[easyg]

I believe experience is the best teacher.

The US Army's fighting men had considerable difficulty stopping the Moro warriors and other combatants with the .38 Long Colt, and the Army began to consider the problem.

Solution.....45 ACP

Not really.

This is a nice story but the fact is that the vast majority of soldiers never even carried a handgun, usually just the officers (and the real reason the officers carried handguns was to shoot troops who tried to run away from the battle).

 

[orionengnr]

To the OP--
I like the fact that you are thinking and trying to come up with something logical and credible. One thing I notice, which really troubles me, is that a 185 45 acp FMJ is rated higher than a 200 grain FMJ, which is rated higher than a 230 gr FMJ.

I am not an expert or a ballistician, but working with FMJ rounds, which are a all likely to penetrate through and through, how is it logical that a lighter round is rated higher than a heavier one? I can only imagine that the same (relative) rankings would be given to JHPs. This seems counter-intuitive to me.

I understand that the probability of expansion is only one of several variables. Keep at it, maybe you are onto something here. Maybe not.